final report assessing the potential for the … · final report assessing the potential for the...

FINAL REPORT

ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL FOR THE

UPSTREAM CONTROL OF CONTAMINANTS

PRESENT IN MATERIALS SPREAD TO LAND

SARA MONTEIRO, CAROL MILNER,

CHRIS SINCLAIR, ALISTAIR BOXALL

DEFRA PROJECT: SP0578 FERA PROJECT: T6PU

APRIL 2011

This report has been produced at The Food and Environment Research Agency

on behalf of Defra

The Food and Environment Research Agency ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The UK produces over 100 million tonnes of biodegradable waste every year and a

significant proportion of this is disposed of in landfills. In order to meet regulatory

targets, the Government, local authorities and industry need to find alternatives to

sending waste to landfill and, for some waste materials one option is to apply the

material to soil.

The application of organic materials to soil not only provides nutrients and organic

matter but also physical improvements. Each source of organic material has its own

specific characteristic mix of organic matter, nutrients and structural improvers. When

spread to land, organic materials recycle nutrients and organic matter back into the soil

that otherwise would be destroyed by incineration or wasted in landfill. Requirements

for the use of chemical fertilizer are also reduced by this practice. Inorganic materials

can also improve the soil physical properties such as texture and porosity.

There is however potential disadvantages associated with land spreading of materials

derived from wastes, primarily due to the potential contaminants they might contain.

These disadvantages include threats to human and animal health, soil contamination

and deterioration of soil structure, odour and visual nuisance, and pollution of water.

There is therefore a need to gain an understanding of what contaminants are present in

different waste types, the potential for these to enter the soil environment and, in

instances where a contaminant poses a risk, approaches to control these risks.

Aim and scope

The overall aim of this project was therefore to identify contaminants and their sources

in organic and inorganic materials spread to land in order to assist in the development

of a strategy to help reduce the loadings of these contaminants at the source. This was

addressed using a number of specific objectives:

� To identify contaminants, and their sources, in organic and inorganic

materials spread onto land;

� To quantify the relative contribution of total load that these sources

represent in each material;

� To identify the relative importance of different waste materials in terms of

inputs of contaminants to land;

� To identify approaches to reduce the loading at the source;

� To review relevant legislation and voluntary/advisory initiatives; and,

� To suggest best options for reducing inputs.

This study focused on a range of materials, namely:

� Sewage sludge

� Septic tank sludge

The Food and Environment Research Agency iii

� Livestock manure

� Biowaste

� Compost

� Digestate

� Industrial wastes:

� Pulp and paper industry sludge

� Waste wood, bark and other plant material

� Dredgings from inland waters

� Blood and gut contents from abattoir

� Textile waste

� Tannery and leather waste

� Waste from food and drinks preparation

� Waste from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture

� Decarbonation sludge (predominantly inorganic)

� Sludge from the production of drinking water (predominantly inorganic)

� Waste lime and lime sludge (predominantly inorganic)

� Waste gypsum (predominantly inorganic)

Results and conclusions

Waste materials can be contaminated with a range of contaminants including

potentially toxic elements (PTEs; Cu, Zn, Ni, Pb, Hg, Cd, Cr, As), organics (PCDDs, PCDFs,

PAHs, PCBs, veterinary medicines, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products,

endocrine disrupting substances) and animal and plant pathogens. These contaminants

arise from a plethora of sources including households, highway runoff, industrial

processes and combustion processes. The data on the occurrence of these contaminants

varies depending on the waste type, with some materials having very limited data and

some (most notably sewage sludge) having a significant amount of information on

contaminant levels.

In order to assess the relative importance of different waste types as a source for soil

contamination by a particular contaminant type, where possible, data on levels of

contamination were combined with information on the application rates for the

different waste types. This analysis demonstrated that for metals sewage sludge,

compost, drinking water treatment sludge and meat processing liquids are the most

important sources. For organics sewage sludge, dredgings, compost, abattoir waste and

food and drink waste are important. For many contaminants, it was not possible to

quantify the inputs from different waste materials so a more qualitative assessment was

done. The results are shown in Table ES1.

The Food and Environment Research Agency iv

Table ES1. Summary of the input of contaminants following the application of different wastes

Material

Contaminants

PTEs POPs Bulk industrial and

domestic chemicals Pesticides

Human

pharmaceuticals

Veterinary

medicines

Biocides

and PCPs Pathogens

Sewage sludge ++ ++ + + ++ NR ++ unlikely

Septic tank sludge ++ + + + ++ NR ++ ++ (if untreated)

Livestock manures + + + + NR ++ NR ++ (if untreated)

Compost + + + + NR NR NR + (low)

Digestate + + + + NR NR NR + (low)

Pulp and paper industry sludge + + + NR NR NR + unlikely

Waste wood, bark and other

plant material + + + + NR NR + + (low)

Dredgings ++ ++ ++ + + + + + (low)

Abattoir waste + + + + NR + NR + (medium)

Textile waste + + + + NR NR + unlikely

Tannery and leather sludge + + + + NR NR + unlikely

Waste from food and drinks

preparation + + + NR NR NR NR + (low)

Waste from chemical and

pharmaceutical manufacture + + + NR + + + unlikely

Waste lime and lime sludge + + + NR NR NR NR unlikely

Waste gypsum + + + NR NR NR NR unlikely

Decarbonation sludge + + + NR NR NR NR + (low)

Drinking water preparation

sludge + + + NR NR NR NR possible

NR – not relevant

+ relevant

++ one of the major sources

The Food and Environment Research Agency v

A systematic approach was used to determine potential management options for different

contaminant types. This considered regulatory approaches, control options at source as well as

treatment options during the waste lifecycle. A number of options were highlighted including:

1. Sort and separate waste streams to reduce cross contamination of wastes.

2. Substitute persistent compounds, where alternative chemicals, that are less persistent,

are currently available.

3. Use best available techniques in production processes

4. Restrict use of PTEs in animal feed by increasing the bioavailability of copper and zinc

used, so that less is required.

5. Compost or thermophilic anaerobic digest to reduce some pathogens.

6. Consider the use of legislation to enforce these strategies.

7. Educate the public in the ultimate fate of waste materials and the need to control

contaminant inputs.

Due to a lack of information in many areas covered in the report, it was not possible to produce

definitive answers on the risks of different waste materials to the functioning of land and on how

best to manage these. To address this, we therefore suggest that work in the future focuses on

the following areas:

� Consideration of a wider range of contaminant types;

� Consideration of a wider range of waste materials;

� Development of risk-based prioritisation schemes to identify contaminants of most

concern;

� Development of a better understanding on the amounts of wastes materials applied to

land;

� Establish the risks to the functioning of land;

� Study the benefits of different waste types in soil as well as the broader costs of waste

material treatments and transport distances;

� Integrate waste disposal into risk assessment schemes for synthetic substances;

� Perform a social study on public awareness of waste and where it goes, followed by

educational outreach about waste;

� Promote Green Chemistry for improving processes; and

� Assess waste mixtures and the best co-digestion practices.

The Food and Environment Research Agency vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Waste in the UK ............................................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Waste Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 3

1.3. Landspreading ................................................................................................................................. 4

1.4. Mechanisms for limiting contamination ......................................................................................... 6

1.5. Aim and objectives .......................................................................................................................... 6

2. APPROACH .................................................................................................................................. 8

2.1. Data used ......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Definition of terms .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3. Materials considered ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.4. Contaminants ................................................................................................................................ 12

2.4.1. Potentially toxic elements ...................................................................................................... 12

2.4.2. Organic compounds ................................................................................................................ 13

2.4.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................... 24

3. CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN MATERIALS SPREAD ONTO LAND ........................ 25

3.1. Sewage sludge ............................................................................................................................... 25

3.1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 25

3.1.2. Treatment ............................................................................................................................... 25

3.1.3. Contaminants ......................................................................................................................... 26

3.1.4. Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 31

3.2. Septic tank sludge .......................................................................................................................... 34

3.2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 34

3.2.2. Contaminants ......................................................................................................................... 34

3.3. Livestock manure ........................................................................................................................... 35

3.3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 35

3.3.2. Treatment ............................................................................................................................... 35

3.3.3. Contaminants ......................................................................................................................... 36

3.3.4. Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 40

3.4. Biowaste ........................................................................................................................................ 43

3.4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 43

3.4.2. Current techniques for dealing with biowaste ....................................................................... 43

The Food and Environment Research Agency vii

3.4.3. Treatment - Composting ........................................................................................................ 44

3.4.4. Treatment – Anaerobic digestion ........................................................................................... 64

3.4.5. Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 66

3.5. Industrial waste materials ............................................................................................................. 69

3.5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 69

3.5.2. Legislation ............................................................................................................................... 70

3.5.3. Pulp and paper industry Sludge .............................................................................................. 71

3.5.4. Waste wood, bark or other plant material ............................................................................. 75

3.5.5. Dredgings from inland waters ................................................................................................ 79

3.5.6. Abattoir wastes ....................................................................................................................... 82

3.5.7. Textile industry waste............................................................................................................. 87

3.5.8. Tannery and leather waste ..................................................................................................... 90

3.5.9. Waste from food and drinks preparation ............................................................................... 92

3.5.10. Waste from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture ....................................................... 94

3.6. Inorganic wastes ............................................................................................................................ 96

3.6.1. Sludge from the production of drinking water ....................................................................... 97

3.6.2. Decarbonation sludge ............................................................................................................. 99

3.6.3. Waste lime and lime sludge ................................................................................................. 100

3.6.4. Waste gypsum ...................................................................................................................... 101

4. CONTAMINANT LOADINGS FROM APPLICATION OF MATERIALS ONTO LAND...................... 104

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 104

4.2. Contaminants .............................................................................................................................. 106

4.2.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 106

4.2.2. Organic compounds .............................................................................................................. 112

4.2.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 116

5. IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CONTAMINATION OF MATERIALS

SPREAD TO LAND ........................................................................................................................... 122

5.1. Introduction and approach used ................................................................................................. 122

5.2. Sewage Sludge ............................................................................................................................. 124

5.2.1. Potentially toxic elements .................................................................................................... 124


5.2.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 133

The Food and Environment Research Agency viii

5.2.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 133

5.3. Livestock manure ......................................................................................................................... 137



5.3.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 140

5.3.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 142

5.4. Municipal solid waste .................................................................................................................. 144


5.4.2. Organic Compounds ............................................................................................................. 146

5.4.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 146

5.4.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 147

5.5. Paper and pulp waste .................................................................................................................. 150

5.5.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 150

5.5.2. Organic Contaminants .......................................................................................................... 152

5.5.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 153

5.5.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 153

5.6. Waste wood, bark and other plant waste ................................................................................... 156

5.6.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 157


5.6.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 159

5.6.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 159

5.7. Dredgings from inland waters ..................................................................................................... 161

5.7.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 162


5.7.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 163

5.7.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 163

5.8. Abattoir waste ............................................................................................................................. 167

5.8.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 167


5.8.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 168

5.8.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 169

5.9. Textile industry waste ................................................................................................................. 172

The Food and Environment Research Agency ix

5.9.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 172


5.9.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 176

5.9.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 176

5.10. Tannery and leather waste .......................................................................................................... 179

5.10.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 179


5.10.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 183

5.10.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 183

5.11. Waste from food and drinks preparation .................................................................................... 185

5.11.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 186


5.11.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 187

5.11.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 188

5.12. Waste from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture ............................................................ 191

5.12.1. PTEs....................................................................................................................................... 192


5.12.3. Pathogens ............................................................................................................................. 194

5.12.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 194

5.13. Summary of Information ............................................................................................................. 197

5.14. Interpretation of information ...................................................................................................... 204

5.15. Significance .................................................................................................................................. 206

5.16. The future .................................................................................................................................... 207

5.16.1. Waste Management ............................................................................................................. 207

5.16.2. Agriculture ............................................................................................................................ 207

5.16.3. Energy Production ................................................................................................................ 207

5.16.4. Population behaviour ........................................................................................................... 207

5.17. Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 207

6. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ...................................................................................... 209

7. REFERENCE LIST ...................................................................................................................... 211

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................................... 230

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................................... 233

The Food and Environment Research Agency x

APPENDIX C .................................................................................................................................... 245

APPENDIX E .................................................................................................................................... 249

APPENDIX F .................................................................................................................................... 254

The Food and Environment Research Agency xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Recycling of selected metals as a percentage of consumption (Defra, 2007c) ................. 4

Table 1.2 Problems associated with and ultimate fate of different contaminants in waste

materials (Amlinger et al., 2004a). ........................................................................................... 5

Table 2.1 Annual heavy metal inputs to agricultural land in England and Wales in 2004

(mg/kg)(ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005) ........................................................ 13

Table 2.2 Organic contaminants found in different material types ................................................ 14

Table 2.3 Volume of pharmaceutically active compounds sold in the UK (kg/year; data from EA,

2008b) ..................................................................................................................................... 19

Table 2.4 Major veterinary medicines in use in the UK (Boxall et al., 2004) .................................. 21

Table 3.1 Examples of sewage sludge treatment processes (DoE, 1996a) ..................................... 26

Table 3.2 Concentrations of metals/elements in UK sewage sludge in mg/kg dry weight ............ 27

Table 3.3 Summary of range concentrations (minimum value, highest maximum and highest

mean reported within the class) for organic contaminants detected in UK sewage sludge in

mg/kg dry weight (unless otherwise stated; UKWIR, 1995; Wild and Jones, 1992; Wilson et

al., 1997; Wild et al., 1993; Wang et al., 1995; Rogers et al., 1989; Nicholls et al., 2001;

Bowen et al., 2003; McIntyre and Lester, 1982; McIntyre and Lester, 1984; Stevens et al.,

2001; Stevens et al., 2003; Leschber, 2006; Sewart et al., 1995; Jones and Northcott, 2000)

................................................................................................................................................ 29

Table 3.4 Legislation/ voluntary initiatives on the use of sludge .................................................... 32

Table 3.5 Contaminants limits available in legislation, policy or voluntary initiatives for sewage

sludge applied to land in Europe and UK (in mg/kg dry matter, unless otherwise stated) ... 33

Table 3.6 Examples of treatments for farm manures (Hickman et al., 2009) ................................. 36

Table 3.7 Typical concentrations of PTEs in manures (ADAS, 2009) ............................................... 37

Table 3.8 Concentrations of veterinary medicines found in animal manures (Boxall et al., 2004) 38

Table 3.9 Sulfonamide and trimethoprim residues in manure samples in mg kg-1

fresh weight

(Haller et al., 2002) ................................................................................................................. 39

Table 3.10 Pathogens found in animal manure (Nicholson et al., 2000) ........................................ 40

Table 3.11 Legislation/ voluntary initiatives on the use of livestock ............................................... 41

Table 3.12 Previous (SI 2000/2481) and current (EC, 2003) maximum permitted levels of zinc and

copper in livestock feeds (mg/kg complete feed) .................................................................. 42

Table 3.13 Production of mushrooms and spent mushroom compost in 1999 and 2003 (DETR,

2000; Defra, 2005b) ................................................................................................................ 46

Table 3.14 Concentrations of PTEs in green/food compost ............................................................ 47

Table 3.15 Concentrations of PTEs in green compost ..................................................................... 49

Table 3.16 Concentrations of PTEs in municipal solid waste composts .......................................... 51

Table 3.17 Concentrations of PTEs in mechanical biological treatment compost-like outputs ...... 52

Table 3.18 Concentrations of PTEs in mechanical heat treatment compost-like outputs

(CalRecovery, 2007) ................................................................................................................ 52

Table 3.19 Average metal content in potential MHT CLO and non-segregated municipal solid

waste compost. ...................................................................................................................... 53

Table 3.20 Heavy metal concentrations in compost of mixtures .................................................... 54

The Food and Environment Research Agency xii

Table 3.21 Concentrations of further potential toxic elements in compost .................................. 55

Table 3.22 Concentrations of PAHs in composts in μg/kg dry weight (unless otherwise stated) .. 57

Table 3.23 Concentrations of PCBs in composts in μg/kg dry weight (unless otherwise stated) ... 58

Table 3.24 Concentrations of PCDD/Fs in composts in ng [I-TEQ]/kg dry weight (unless otherwise

stated) ..................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 3.25 Use of pesticides on mushrooms grown in Great Britain in 2003 (CSL, 2004) .............. 63

Table 3.26 Concentrations of PTEs in digestate from the UK (ADAS, 2009) ................................... 65

Table 3.27 Concentrations of organic compounds in Swiss digestates in µg/kg dry weight (dw)

unless otherwise stated (Kupper et al., 2006) ....................................................................... 65

Table 3.28 Legislation/ voluntary initiatives on the use of compost/digestate .............................. 67

Table 3.29 Limits for contaminants for compost (class 1 and 2), digestate and stabilised biowaste

................................................................................................................................................ 68

Table 3.30 Assessment of likely concentrations of organic contaminants in a range of wastes

(Aitken et al., 2002) ................................................................................................................ 70

Table 3.31 Legislation/ voluntary initiatives on the use of industrial wastes on land ................... 71

Table 3.32 Concentrations of metals in paper sludge, de-inked paper pulp and waste paper

(mg/kg dry solids; mean (min;max)) ...................................................................................... 73

Table 3.33 Organic contaminants concentrations in the pulp and paper industry sludge (in mg/kg

dry weight; Gendebien et al., 2001). ...................................................................................... 74

Table 3.34 Concentration of PTEs in waste wood, bark and other plant material (mg/kg dw; Davis

and Rudd, 1999) ..................................................................................................................... 76

Table 3.35 Concentrations of organic compounds detected in waste wood, bark and other plant

material (Gendebien et al., 2001) .......................................................................................... 76

Table 3.36. Plant pathogens and nematodes, hosts and common name of diseases caused, or of

nematodes (Noble and Roberts, 2004) .................................................................................. 78

Table 3.37 PTEs /elements and other inorganic chemicals reported in dredgings (in mg/kg dw) . 80


mean reported within the class) for organic contaminants detected in sediments in µg/kg

dry weight (unless otherwise stated)(Allchin et al., 1999; Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2003; Long et

al., 1998; Daniels et al., 2000; Buser et al., 1998; Braga et al., 2005; Ternes et al., 2002;

López de Alda et al., 2002; Ferrer et al., 2004; Davis and Rudd, 1999; Metre and Mahler,

2005; Micić and Hofmann, 2009; Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004) ............................................... 81

Table 3.39 Metal concentrations in abattoir wastes in the UK (mean (min; max) in mg/kg) ......... 85

Table 3.40 Organic contaminants in abattoir wastes (in mg/kg dry weight; Gendebien et al., 2001)

................................................................................................................................................ 86

Table 3.41 Metal concentrations in textile waste in mg/kg dw. ..................................................... 88

Table 3.42 Organic compounds levels in textile waste in mg/kg dw (Gendebien et al 2001) ........ 90

Table 3.43 Concentrations for PTEs in tannery sludge (mg/kg dry weight) .................................... 91

Table 3.44 Concentration of PTEs in the animal food production industry .................................... 96

Table 3.45 Concentration of PTEs in the food and drinks production industry .............................. 97

Table 3.46 Concentrations of organic contaminants detected in food and drink industry sludge

(Gendebien et al., 2001) ......................................................................................................... 94

Table 3.47 Concentrations of PTEs in wastes from the chemical and pharmaceutical industry

(Gendebien et al., 2001) ......................................................................................................... 95

The Food and Environment Research Agency xiii

Table 3.48 Concentrations of PTEs in sludge from waterworks in mg/kg dry weight (WRc, 2009) 98

Table 3.49 Concentration of PTEs in decarbonation sludge in mg/kg dry weight (Gendebien et al.,

2001) ..................................................................................................................................... 100

Table 3.50 Concentration of PTEs in waste lime and lime sludge (mg/kg dry weight) ................. 101

Table 3.51 Concentration of PTEs in waste gypsum from plasterboard (mg/kg dry weight) ....... 103

Table 4.1 Application rates of materials to land used to calculate input of contaminants .......... 105

Table 4.2 Heavy metal summary input following the application of different materials to land.

Comparison with sewage sludge inputs. .............................................................................. 112

Table 4.3 Qualitative assessment of pathogens levels in materials applied to land ..................... 116

Table 4.4 Summary of the input of contaminants following the application of different wastes 112

Table 5.1 Judgment for practicality and effectiveness .................................................................. 123

Table 5.2 Domestic sources of metals/elements in wastewater (IC Consultants, 2001) .............. 125

Table 5.3 Domestic sources of potentially toxic elements in urban wastewater (modified from

Lester, 1987 and WRc, 1994 as cited in IC Consultants, 2001) ............................................ 126

Table 5.4 Industrial sources of metals/elements in wastewater (IC Consultants, 2001) .............. 127

Table 5.5 Sources of organic contaminants in sewage sludge ...................................................... 129

Table 5.6 Description of common additives in a range of personal care products (Xia et al., 2005)

.............................................................................................................................................. 130

Table 5.7 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in sewage sludge .................. 135

Table 5.8 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in livestock manure .............. 143

Table 5.9 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in municipal solid waste ....... 148

Table 5.10 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in paper and pulp waste ..... 154

Table 5.11 Result of risk assessment of treated waste wood (WRAP, 2005) ................................ 157

Table 5.12 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in wood, bark and other plant

waste .................................................................................................................................... 160

Table 5.13 Upstream control measures for contaminants in dredgings from inland waters ....... 164

Table 5.14 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in abattoir waste ................ 170

Table 5.15 BAT for the substitution of hazardous chemicals in the textile industry (IPPC, 2003a)

.............................................................................................................................................. 174

Table 5.16 BAT for the selection of incoming fibre materials (IPPC, 2003a) ................................. 175

Table 5.17 Chemical and Physical treatments of textile waste (Robinson et al., 2001). .............. 176

Table 5.18 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in textile industry waste. .... 177

Table 5.19 Level of chemicals used to process salted bovine hides (IPPC, 2003b) ....................... 181

Table 5.20 Substances currently used and BATs substitutes (IPPC, 2003b) .................................. 182

Table 5.21 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in tannery and leather waste.

.............................................................................................................................................. 184

Table 5.22 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in the food and drink industry

waste. ................................................................................................................................... 189

Table 5.23 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in the chemical and

pharmaceutical industry waste. ........................................................................................... 195

Table 5.24 Summary table for the most effective measure to reduce PTEs contamination

according to highest input material. .................................................................................... 198

Table 5.25 Summary table for the most effective measures to reduce organic compounds

contamination according to input materials. ....................................................................... 200

The Food and Environment Research Agency xiv

Table 5.26 Summary table for the most effective measures to reduce pathogen contamination

according to input materials. ............................................................................................... 203

Appendices

Table A - 1 Prioritisation assessment for veterinary compounds that have the potential to enter

the environment (Boxall et al., 2003) ............................................................................................ 230

Table A - 2 Concentrations reported for organic contaminants in sewage sludge in the UK ...... 233

Table A - 3 Plant toxins that may occur in green compost ............................................................ 246

Table A - 4 Concentration ranges of compounds detected in bed sediments ............................. 249

The Food and Environment Research Agency xv

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Estimated total annual waste arising by sector: 2004 (Defra 2007a)............................. 2

Figure 1.2 Summary of the management of waste in 2004 (Defra 2007a). ...................................... 3

Figure 1.3 The “Waste hierarchy” (EU, 2008; Defra, 2007b) ............................................................ 3

Figure 4.1 Total metal input following the application of different materials .............................. 106

Figure 4.2 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Cadmium ........ 107

Figure 4.3 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Chromium ....... 108

Figure 4.4 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Copper ............ 108

Figure 4.5 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Nickel .............. 109

Figure 4.6 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Lead ................ 109

Figure 4.7 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Zinc ................. 110

Figure 4.8 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Mercury .......... 110

Figure 4.9 PTEs loading in g/ha following application of dredgings or sewage sludge to soils ... 111

Figure 4.10 PAH loading in g/ha following application of materials to soils ................................. 113

Figure 4.11 PAH loading in g/ha following application of materials to soils ................................. 114

Figure 4.12 PCBs loading in mg/ha following application of different materials to soils .............. 115

Figure 4.13 PCB loading in mg/ha following application of materials to soils .............................. 115

Figure 5.1 Sewage sludge waste stream ....................................................................................... 124

Figure 5.2 Livestock manure waste stream ................................................................................... 137

Figure 5.3 Municipal solid waste stream ....................................................................................... 144

Figure 5.4 Paper mills waste stream ............................................................................................. 150

Figure 5.5 Waste wood, bark and other plant waste .................................................................... 156

Figure 5.6 Dredgings waste stream ............................................................................................... 161

Figure 5.7 Abattoir waste stream .................................................................................................. 167

Figure 5.8 Textile industry waste stream ....................................................................................... 172

Figure 5.9 Tannery and leather waste stream ............................................................................... 179

Figure 5.10 Waste from food and drinks preparation stream ....................................................... 185

Figure 5.11 Chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture waste stream ........................................ 191

The Food and Environment Research Agency xvi

ABBREVIATIONS

BAT – Best Available Technique

G/FC- Green/Food Compost

CSF- Chemicals Stakeholder Forum

EC – European Commission

ERA – Environmental Risk Assessment

EU – European Union

EWC - European Waste Catalogue

GC – Green Compost

MBT – Mechanical Biological Treatment

MHT – mechanical Heat treatment

MSW – Municipal Solid waste

MSWC- Municipal Solid waste compost

PRTRs - Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers

PVC - polyvinyl chloride

REACh - Registration Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals

STP – Sewage Treatment Plant

USA – United States of America

WFD – Water Framework directive

Potentially toxic elements:

As - arsenic

Cd – cadmium

Cr – chromium

Cu – copper

Ni – nickel

Pb – lead

Hg – mercury

Zn - zinc

Organic contaminants:

AOX – adsorbable organic halides

BBP - butyl benzyl phthalate

BFRs- brominated flame retardants

CBs – chlorobenzenes

DBP - di-n-butyl phthalate

DEHP - di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

DIDP - diisodecyl phthalate

DINP - diidononyl phthalate

EDCs – endocrine disrupting chemicals

HCBD - hexachlorobutadiene

The Food and Environment Research Agency xvii

LAS – linear alkylbenzene sullfonates

MBTE - methyl tertiary butyl ether

NPE – nonylphenol ethoxylate

NPs - nonylphenols

PAHs – polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PBDEs – polybrominated diphenylethers

PCBs – polychlorinated biphenyls

PCDD/Fs – polychlorinated dibenzo dioxins/furans

PCNs – polychlorinated naphthalenes

PCP – pentachlorophenol

PCPs – Personal Care Products

POPs – Persistent Organic Pollutants

PTEs- Potentially Toxic Elements

TBBP-A - tetrabromobiphenol

The Food and Environment Research Agency 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The UK produces over 100 million tonnes of biodegradable waste every year and a

significant proportion of this is disposed of in landfills. In order to meet regulatory targets,

the Government, local authorities and industry need to find alternatives to sending waste to

landfill and also explore opportunities to produce high quality materials from biodegradable

wastes (EA, 2008a).

Once identified as waste, material falls under European and national legislation. The Waste

Framework Directive 2008 regulates disposal of waste in Europe and prioritises prevention

of waste and the reuse and recovery of waste (EU, 2008). In the UK, the Waste Framework

Directive has been implemented by the following national legislation: the Environmental

Protection Act (1990), the Control of Pollution (amendment) Act ( SI 1991/1618), the Waste

Management Licensing Regulations ( SI 1994/1056), and the Controlled Waste Regulations

(SI 1991/1624)(Wasteonline, 2005). Disposal and management of waste is further regulated

by the Directive on the Landfill of Waste (EU, 1999), Landfill (England and Wales)

Regulations (2002), and the Directive on Waste Incineration (EU 2000a). The Landfill

Directive sets standards for design, operation, and aftercare of landfills and restricts the

contents. Hazardous wastes are particularly restricted and the Directive lays down

requirements to reduce the amount of biodegradable wastes going to landfill over certain

time periods, e.g. the amount of biodegradable municipal waste being landfilled in 2020

must be reduced to 35% (by weight) of that in 1995. Moreover to increase the incentive to

divert waste from landfill sites a landfill tax was introduced that charges for waste disposal

to landfill (WRc, 2009).

Waste recovery by landspreading, when environmentally acceptable, is promoted by the

legislative framework for waste management in the EU (EU, 2008) and in the UK. In the UK,

it is estimated that the amount of wastes recycled to land is about 22 million tonnes dry

solids per year. Farm wastes account for 94% of these wastes, with sewage sludge and other

wastes accounting for 2% and 4%, respectively (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

A main requirement for the exemption for landspreading of controlled wastes is that an

agricultural benefit or ecological improvement is achieved (EC, 2001). For conventional

fertilizers such as livestock manures and sewage sludge, it has been proven that there is an

agricultural benefit (ADAS, Rothamsted Research, WRc, 2007; Edmeades, 2003). However,

this is not necessarily the case for other classes of wastes where there is insufficient

information on the risks and benefits to land.

The range of names used for biodegradable wastes reflects a variety of uses, value, quality

and impact on the environment. Among them sewage sludge, livestock manures, compost

and digestate. Some are considered to be wastes, others products, depending on the

circumstances (EA, 2009). Before application to land some of these wastes are treated and

some are directly spread without further treatment. To avoid confusion, within this report

the term “material” will be used for all wastes or products that can be spread to agricultural

land.


One area that needs consideration relates to the potential risks of chemical and biological

contaminants that might arise from different materials applied to land (Davis and Rudd,

1999).

Therefore, an inventory of contaminants and their sources in materials applied to land is

performed within this report in order to develop a strategy to reduce loadings of these

contaminants at the source.

1.1. Waste in the UK

The Environmental Services Association states that the total amount of waste produced in

the UK is 434 million tonnes each year (ESA, 2009) although it does not specify the year or

source of the data. Figure 1.1 shows the proportion of wastes produced by sector in the UK

in 2004, and gives the total annual waste at 335 million tonnes (Defra 2007a). This figure,

however, does not include manure and straw from the agricultural sector.

Figure 1.1. Estimated total annual waste arising by sector: 2004 (Defra 2007a).

The approaches used for the management of the waste produced in 2004 are shown in

Figure 1.2, illustrating that in 2004 over 66% of waste was disposed of into or onto land or

into water and only 32% was recycled, i.e. reprocessed into products, materials or

substances whether for the original or other purposes.


Figure 1.2 Summary of the management of waste in 2004 (Defra 2007a).

1.2. Waste Strategy

The European Union Directive 2008/98/EC (EU, 2008) defines a priority order in waste

prevention and management legislation and policy as a “waste hierarchy” (Figure 1.3).

Reduction of waste is the most preferable route toward sustainability, followed by reuse of

waste. Recycling and composting have preference over energy recovery, and disposal is the

least desirable option. Management of waste should follow this order of priorities. To move

towards sustainable waste management, national waste strategies have also been produced

for England and these were published in the Waste Strategy for England 2007 (Defra,

2007b).

Figure 1.3 The “Waste hierarchy” (EU, 2008; Defra, 2007b)

A number of directives encourage recycling of specific materials and these include the

Directive on Batteries and Accumulators (EC, 1991a), the Packaging and Packaging Waste

Directive (EU, 1994), and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive

(EU, 2003). The Household Waste Recycling Act (2003) encourages domestic recycling by

requiring all English waste collection authorities to collect a minimum of two types of

recyclable waste. This service is already being provided for 90% of English households (Defra


2009). Wastes such as glass, paper, plastic, and aluminium can be recycled into similar

products.

Table 1.1 shows the percentage of consumption of selected materials recycled in 2003

(Defra 2007c).

Table 1.1 Recycling of selected metals as a percentage of consumption (Defra, 2007c)

Ferrous metals Lead Paper & board Glass containers Aluminium packaging Plastic

33 60 38 35 26 10

Waste management options for biodegradable waste include, in addition to prevention at

source, collection (separated or mixed waste), anaerobic digestion and/or composting,

incineration, and landfilling. The environmental and economic benefits of different

treatment methods depend significantly on local conditions such as population density,

infrastructure and climate as well as on markets for associated products (energy and

composts) (CEC, 2008).

Other waste types can be recycled or recovered in other ways. For instance, gypsum can be

used to make plasterboard, quarry waste can be used for construction materials, and some

wastes can be spread to land to improve soil properties.

The European Waste Catalogue 2002 (EWC) includes a list of waste types established by the

European Commission (EC, 2000a), under which all wastes should be classified. It is brought

in force by List of Wastes (England) and List of Wastes (Wales) Regulations 2005. The List of

Waste codes are split into 20 chapters (2 digit code) based on the source from which the

waste arises and then further split in to subchapters (up to 6 digit codes), but there is no

specification on which wastes are allowed to be spread on land.

In a report for Defra (WRc, 2009) a large variability was observed across most parameters

within the same waste code, since it includes many waste streams with different

characteristics that should be evaluated in greater detail. Therefore, in this report the waste

codes have not been used.

1.3. Landspreading

In the Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) Regulations (2005), in paragraph 7

of Schedule 3, all materials allowed to be spread to agricultural land where “such

treatments results in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement” are presented (SI

2005/1728). To claim agricultural benefit it must be proved that the material will improve

the soil for growing crops or grazing (WRc, 2009). The definition used by the Environment

Agency for agricultural benefit/ecological improvement is that given by Davis and Rudd

(1999) and may be considered in terms of:

� Crop yield and quality;

� Soil chemical properties;

� Soil physical properties;

� Soil biological properties; and


� Soil water content.

Before application to land, some of these materials are treated and some are directly spread

without further treatment. Composting is the most common biological treatment option

and is the best suited method for the treatment of green waste and wood material (CEC,

2008). Anaerobic digestion is best suited for treating wet biodegradable wastes, including

fat. It produces a gas mixture mainly composed of methane (50 to 75%) and carbon dioxide.

The residue from the process, the digestate can be composted and used for similar purpose

as compost.

The application of organic materials to soil not only provides nutrients and organic matter

but also physical improvements. Each source of organic material has its own specific

characteristic mix of organic matter, nutrients and structural improvers. When spread to

land, organic materials recycle nutrients and organic matter back into the soil that

otherwise would be destroyed by incineration or wasted in landfill. Requirements for the

use of chemical fertilizer are also reduced by this practice (Amlinger et al., 2004a). Inorganic

materials are used to improve the soils physical properties such as texture, porosity and

alkalinity and may also provide some nutrients (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

There are however potential disadvantages associated with landspreading materials derived

from wastes, primarily due to the potential contaminants they might contain. These

disadvantages include threats to human and animal health, soil contamination and

deterioration of structure, odour and visual nuisance, and pollution of water (Davis and

Rudd, 1999; Gendebien et al., 2001). Table 1.2 summarises the threats from different

contaminant classes and their fate once applied to soil. Excessive nutrient overloading,

heavy metal contaminants, organic contaminants, and pathogens are the source of these

threats (Amlinger et al., 2004a).

Table 1.2 Problems associated with and ultimate fate of different contaminants in waste

materials (Amlinger et al., 2004a).

Threat in soil

Fate

Degradation in soil Transference

Nutrients

Excess carbon can temporarily

immobilize nitrogen.

Excess nitrogen can contaminate

surface water.

Eutrophication.

Soil will rebalance with time,

although the time may be

substantial

Leaching into water.

Uptake by plants.

Sorption on soil particles.

Metals

Impair mechanisms of microbe

reproduction.

Accumulate in plants, animals and

humans, causing health problems

e.g. Mercury, chromium

Accumulate in soil, do not

degrade.


Uptake by plants.


Organic

Contaminants

Bioaccumulation through plants and

animals to humans

e.g. PCB and PAH.

Toxic to plants and microbes so

reduce soil functioning

e.g. antibiotics.

Some are persistent and

accumulate, and others degrade

readily.

Degradation products can cause

more threats.


Uptake by plants.


Volatilisation.

Pathogens

Infection of plants, animals, and

humans ( e.g. Escherichia coli O157

and Salmonella)

Multiply in the right conditions.

Spread by movement of soil,

water, plants, animals, and

humans.


1.4. Mechanisms for limiting contamination

To protect soils, animals, humans and the environment the wastes spread on land need to

be controlled. The Environment Agency regulates the use and disposal of wastes through

the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2007 (WRc, 2009; EA, 2008a). Other legislation

limits what and how much can be spread, where, how and when. For example:

� Any waste containing animal products including meat falls under the Animal By-

products Regulation (EU, 2002). It may only be spread after being digested in an

approved category 3 facility and may not be spread onto pasture land (WRc, 2009).

� Wood treated with copper chromium arsenate is not allowed to be composted for

spreading onto land under the Control of Dangerous Substances Regulations (SI

(2003/3274).

� The Sewage Sludge Directive (EC, 1986) regulates the use of sludge in agriculture to

prevent harmful effects for soil, animals and humans.

Waste can be treated to minimize harmful effects. Organic waste is stabilized by composting

(aerobic digestion) or anaerobic digestion. These treatments may reduce levels of organic

contaminants and pathogens. There are other possible treatments such as electro

remediation for PTEs (Dach and Starmans, 2006; Petersen et al. 2007) and biological

treatments such as using fungi to break down organic contaminants (Robinson et al., 2001).

It is better practice to prevent the contaminants from entering the production process and

waste stream in the first place. A range of mechanisms exist to achieve this including:

Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) on chemicals can generate information about which

chemicals are most hazardous and be used to manage their use; Green Chemistry research

is developing new alternatives to hazardous substances and processes; and the REACh

(Registration Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) Regulations are beginning to

provide information on which chemicals are the most hazardous. All this information can be

used to improve production processes and reduce contamination risks. Recognition can be

gained for using Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC, from

here on in called “BAT”) (Thompson et al. 2001). The development of standards for waste

may also provide a mechanism to encourage producers of waste materials to minimise the

level of contamination. The Publicly Available Specification 100, “PAS 100” (BSI, 2005) for

composted materials is a non-statutory standard that demonstrates good practice and in

composting organic material. The PAS 100 standard enables users of compost to be

confident in its quality. A similar standard or award for all producers of organic waste to a

recognised safe standard for land application would provide incentivise to use best

practices.

The choice of individuals can influence contamination. Public awareness of environmental

issues enables educated choices that can drive changes in industry and practices.

1.5. Aim and objectives

The overall aim of this project is to identify contaminants and their sources in organic and

inorganic materials spread to land in order to develop a strategy to help in reducing the

loadings of these contaminants at the source.


This was addressed using a number of specific objectives:

� To identify contaminants, and their sources, in organic and inorganic materials

spread onto land;

� To quantify the relative contribution of total load that these sources represent in

each material;

� To identify the relative importance of different waste materials in terms of inputs

of contaminants to land;

� To identify approaches to reduce the loading at the source;

� To review relevant legislation and voluntary/advisory initiatives; and,

� To suggest best options for reducing inputs.


2. APPROACH

2.1. Data used

The study was desk-based and utilised a range of information including:

� Defra funded research

� European Commission reports

� Environment Agency reports

� Industry reports

� Confidential data

� Scientific literature

In addition, a workshop was held at Fera at Sand Hutton in October 2009 to present the

interim results of the study and to gain feedback from a range of stakeholders. This report

therefore also reflects some of the discussions at this workshop.

2.2. Definition of terms

Due to the fact that some wastes are landspread untreated and others treated (e.g.

compost) within this report the term “material” is applied for all wastes/products applied to

land. Below we define some material types and terms discussed in the report.

Waste

“biowaste” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “biodegradable

garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, restaurants, caterers and

retail premises and comparable waste from food processing plants.”

“by-product” is defined in article 5 of the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as a

“substance or object, resulting from a production process, the primary aim of which is not

the production of that item, may be regarded as not being waste referred to in point (1) of

Article 3 but as being a by-product only if the following conditions are met:

� Further use of the substance or object is certain;

� The substance or object can be used directly without any further processing other

than normal industrial practice;

� The substance or object is produced as an integral part of a production process;

� Further use is lawful, i.e. the substance or object fulfils all relevant product,

environmental and heath protection requirements for the specific use and will not lead to

overall adverse environmental or human health impacts”

“collection” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “the gathering of

waste, including the preliminary sorting and preliminary storage of waste for the purposes of

transport to a waste treatment facility”.


“disposal” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “any operation which is

not recovery even where the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of

substances or energy.”

“end-of-waste status” in article 6 of the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC “is applied to

certain specified waste shall cease to be waste within the meaning of point (1) of Article 3

when it has undergone a recovery, including recycling, operation and complies with specific

criteria to be developed in accordance with the following conditions:

� the substance or object is commonly used for specific purposes;

a market or demand exists for such substance or object;

� the substance or object fulfils the technical requirements for the specific

purposes and meets the existing legislation and standards applicable to

products; and

� the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental

or human health impacts”.

“green waste” is defined within this report as source separated waste composed of garden

or park waste, such as grass or flower cuttings, bush and tree cuttings, leaves, etc.

“recovery” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “any operation the

principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which

would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to

fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy”.

“recycling” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “any recovery

operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances

whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material

but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used

as fuels or for backfilling operations”.

“re-use” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “any operation by which

products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which

they were conceived”.

“separate collection” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “the

collection where a waste stream is kept separately by type and nature so as to facilitate

treatment”.

“treatment” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “recovery or disposal

operations, including preparation prior to recovery or disposal”.

“waste” is defined in the European Union Directive 2008/98/EC as “any substance or object

which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”.

Anaerobic digestate

“anaerobic digestion” is defined in the PAS for Anaerobic Digestion Materials (BSI, 2008) as

the “process of controlled decomposition of biodegradable materials under managed


conditions where free oxygen is absent, at temperatures suitable for naturally occurring

mesophilic or thermophilic anaerobic and facultative bacteria species, that convert the

inputs to a methane rich biogas and whole digestate”

“separated fibre” is defined in the PAS for Anaerobic Digestion Materials (BSI, 2008) as the

“fibrous fraction of material derived by separating the coarse fibres from whole digestate”.

“separated liquor” is defined in the PAS for Anaerobic Digestion Materials (BSI, 2008) as the

“liquid fraction of material remaining after separating coarse fibrous particles from whole

digestate”.

“whole digestate” is defined in the PAS for Anaerobic Digestion Materials (BSI, 2008) as the

“material resulting from a digestion process and that has undergone a post-digestion

separation step to deriver separated liquor and separated fibre”.

Compost

“compost” is defined in the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) for Composted Materials

(BSI, 2005) as a “solid particulate material that is the result of composting, that has been

sanitized and stabilized and that confers beneficial effects when added to soil, used as a

component of a growing medium, or is used in another way in conjunction with plants”

“composting” is defined in the Specification for Composted Materials (BSI, 2005) as “the

process of controlled biological decomposition of biodegradable materials under managed

conditions that are predominantly aerobic and that allow the development of thermophilic

temperatures as a result of biologically produced heat”.

“green compost” is defined within this report as green waste compost derived from source-

separated collection schemes.

“green/food compost” is defined within this report as compost derived from separately

collected household waste, including kitchen waste.

“input material” is defined in the Specification for Composted Materials (BSI, 2005) as the

“biodegradable material going into a composting process”.

“mixed municipal solid waste compost” is defined within this report as compost derived

from non-segregated municipal solid waste and represents the organic waste fraction in

municipal waste.

“mechanical-biological treatment compost-like output” ” is defined within this report as

compost derived from the mechanical-biological treatment of non-segregated municipal

solid waste.

“mechanical heat treatment compost-like output” is defined within this report as compost

derived from the mechanical heat treatment of non-segregated municipal solid waste.


“spent mushroom compost” is defined within this report as compost derived from the

mushroom industry.

Sewage sludge

“domestic waste water” is defined in Directive 91/271/EEC (EC, 1991b) as “waste water

from residential settlements and services which originates predominantly from the human

metabolism and from household activities”

"septic tank sludge" is defined in the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 (SI

1989/1263) as “the residual sludge from septic tanks and other similar installations for the

treatment of sewage”

“sludge” is defined in the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1263) as

“the residual sludge from sewage plants treating domestic or urban waste waters and from

other sewage plants treating waste waters of a composition similar to domestic and urban

waste waters”

"treated sludge" is defined in the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989 (SI

1989/1263) as “sludge or septic tank sludge which has undergone biological, chemical or

heat treatment, long-term storage or any other appropriate process so as significantly to

reduce its fermentability and the health hazards resulting from its use”

“urban waste water” is defined in Directive 91/271/EEC (EC, 1991b) as “domestic

wastewater or the mixture of domestic waste water with industrial waste water and/or run-

off rain water”

2.3. Materials considered

This report focused on a range of materials, namely:

� Sewage sludge

� Septic tank sludge

� Livestock manure

� Compost

� Digestate

� Industrial wastes:



� Dredgings from inland waters

� Blood and gut contents from abattoir

� Textile waste

� Tannery and leather waste



� Sludge from the production of drinking water (predominantly

inorganic)


� Decarbonation sludge (predominantly inorganic)

� Waste lime and lime sludge (predominantly inorganic)

� Waste gypsum (predominantly inorganic)

2.4. Contaminants

A wide range of potential contaminants have been considered within this report. These

include:

� PTEs

� Organic contaminants

� Animal/Human pathogens

� Plant pathogens

� Physical contaminants

Nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium which are contaminants, when in excess, were not

considered, because their levels are commonly used to govern choice and use of fertiliser.

Potentially toxic elements, organic contaminants and pathogens are discussed in more

detail below. The presence of degradation products derived from the compounds above

must also be considered. Davis and Rudd (1999) suggested that when waste arises from the

processes described above it should be subjected to a detailed evaluation and risk

assessment.

2.4.1. Potentially toxic elements

Potentially toxic elements (PTEs) include the metals copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), nickel (Ni), lead

(Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr) and the element arsenic (As). Potentially

toxic elements include uranium (U) and vanadium (V). Total quantities of PTEs entering the

soil from diffuse and agricultural sources are much higher than their losses through leaching

and plant uptake. Therefore, PTEs tend to accumulate in topsoils over time, which could

have long-term implications for the quality of agricultural soils (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005). Some metals such as Cd, Pb and Hg have no known biological function

and might therefore cause serious health problems if entering the human food chain (ADAS,

Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

Soil protection policies in the UK (Defra, 2004a) and the EU (CEC, 2002) aim to strategically

reduce PTEs input to soils. A quantitative inventory of PTEs inputs to agricultural soils

through the application of materials to land is therefore needed to find appropriate ways of

reducing inputs to soils. Atmospheric deposition of metals also occurs but much smaller

amounts are added to soils when compared with amounts added through application of

“wastes” (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

In a Defra report (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005) annual heavy metal inputs

to agricultural land in England and Wales (2004) from all the sources considered within that

report are summarised in Table 2.1.


Table 2.1 Annual heavy metal inputs to agricultural land in England and Wales in 2004

(mg/kg)(ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005)

Source Zn Cu Ni Pb Cd Cr As Hg

Atmospheric deposition 2485 638 180 611 22 84 35 11

Livestock manures 1666 541 47 44 4 32 15 <1

Sewage sludge 385 271 28 106 2 78 3 1

Industrial wastes 65 25 4 7 1 6 nd <1

Inorganic fertilizers

Phosphate fertilisers

199

152

67

22

30

15

13

2.4

9

7.1

94

74

6

5.1

<1

<0.1

Agrochemicals 22 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Irrigation water 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 nd

Composts 52 13 5 28 <1 6 nd <1

Corrosion 59 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Dredgings 615 86 77 152 2 83 22 <1

Lead shot nd nd nd 18000 nd nd nd nd Footbaths 381 0 nd nd nd nd nd nd Total 5934 1648 371 18960 39 383 80 13

nd – no data

For Zn and Cu, 30% of the total annual inputs to agricultural land were from livestock

manures, which were a much less important source for the other metals. Approximately

90% of total Pb inputs were from lead shot, whereas dredgings were shown to be an

important source of Ni, Cr and As, accounting for 22-27% of total inputs. For Cd,

atmospheric deposition was the most important source (56%) followed by the use of

inorganic fertilisers (mainly phosphate fertilisers) and lime that accounted for 23% of total

inputs. Over 85% of Hg inputs were from atmospheric deposition (ADAS, Imperial College,

JBA Consulting, 2005).

Therefore, atmospheric deposition was an important source for many metals to agricultural

land in terms of total quantities on a national scale. However, input rates on an individual

field basis were small when compared to inputs from sewage sludge, composts and

livestock manures. With the exception for dredgings and lead shot, the highest inputs rates

for most metals were from sewage sludge and composts, applied at 250 kg total N/ha/yr.

However, sewage sludge represented < 25% and compost <1% of the total metals inputs

and the land receiving these materials was relatively small (< 1% of agricultural land

received sewage sludge (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

2.4.2. Organic compounds

There are a large and diverse variety of chemicals that could be included in an assessment of

the inputs of organic contaminants to soils. For instance, some 90 000 industrial and

domestically employed organic compounds have the potential to be present in materials

derived from wastes and applied to land (O’Connor et al., 2005). Therefore, with the

application of those materials to soils, a large number of organic contaminants might also

potentially be applied. Potential sources of organic contaminants inputs to soils include

atmospheric deposition, sewage sludge, animal manure, compost and other materials, the

use of pesticides and irrigation water.


The fate of organic contaminants in the aquatic environment and their potential for direct

impact on human health via the food chain has been extensively studied, but only recently

has attention focused on the impacts of organic contaminants in soils.

In a Defra report (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005) identified seven broad

categories of organic contaminants that are described in more detail below:

� Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)

� Bulk chemicals used domestically and in the industry

� Human pharmaceuticals

� Veterinary medicines

� Pesticides

� Biocides and personal care products (PCPs)

� Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)

Organic contaminants that are likely to be present in materials to be spread to land are

summarised in Table 2.2 (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

Table 2.2 Organic contaminants found in different material types

Material POPs

Industrial

and bulk

chemicals

Pesticides Human

pharmaceuticals

Veterinary

medicines

Biocides

and PCPs

Sewage sludge x x x x NR x

Manure x x x NR x NR

Industrial wastes x x x x x x

Compost x x x NR x NR

Dredgings x x x x x X

NR – not relevant

2.4.2.1. Persistent organic pollutants

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are organic compounds of natural or anthropogenic

origin that are resistant to photolytic, chemical and/or biological degradation (UNEP, 1999).

Specific characteristics of these compounds are low water solubility, high lipophilicity

(dissolve in fats), which gives them the potential to bioaccumulate. POPs are also semi-

volatile compounds and thus are able to be transported for long distances from the original

source via the atmosphere and the aquatic environment (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005). Therefore, POPs are widely distributed and may be found at locations

where they have not been used.

Some POPs, including organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and

polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) have been produced to use within industry and their

use is now limited (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Others, such as

brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are still produced in large quantities as high as 69 000

tonnes worldwide (Eljarrat and Barceló, 2004).

Some POPs, including polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated

dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are accidentally formed

or as a by-product of industry or combustion process (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005).


Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a large group of compounds that comprises of

two or more joined benzene rings. Chemical characteristics vary for the different PAHs.

PAHs are a by-product of incomplete combustion and their main source is from burning

fossil fuels (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001). These compounds are also semi-volatile which makes

them highly mobile throughout the environment (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting,

2005). The major source of PAH emissions are road transport combustion that contributes

for 58% of the emissions in 2007 (NAEI, 2009). Domestic and other industrial combustions

were the second major sources of emissions in the same year (NAEI, 2009). Many PAHs are

known or suspected to be carcinogens, the most potent being benzo[1]anthracene,

benzo[a]pyrene and dibenz[ah]anthracene (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001).

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are substances produced by chlorination of biphenyl.

These are stable compounds, with low volatility and resistant to degradation at high

temperatures (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001). PCBs used to be widely used industrial chemicals

used in dielectric fluids in electrical transformers and capacitors, hydraulic fluids, cutting and

lubricating oils and additives in a vast number of materials such as paints, sealants and

adhesives (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Their use has been banned since

the late 1970s. There are 209 congeners (i.e. related chemicals) and PCBs are characterised

by having low solubility and vapour pressure and are lipophilic, with high solubility in non-

polar solvents, oils and fats (Eljarrat and Barceló, 2004).

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and -furans (PCDD/Fs) may form during the production of

chlorinated compounds or during combustion processes (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001). Waste

incineration and coal combustion are the main sources of these compounds in the

environment (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Dioxins and furans are

persistent compounds, lipophilic, ubiquitous and bioaccumulate. They are also highly toxic,

very stable compounds with extremely low water solubility. Only 17 of the 75 dioxin

congeners and 135 furan congeners, which are chlorine substituted at all four lateral

positions (the 2,3,7,8-substituted) are of particular interest due to their toxicity (ADAS,

Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Analysis of PCDD/Fs is generally restricted to the

eight tetra- to heptachlorinated homologue sums and the 17 2,3,7,8- substituted congeners.

The 25 separate concentrations from this kind of analysis are often condensed into a single

number, the toxicity equivalent (TE) that is calculated by summing the concentration and

the toxicity of the analyte relative to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinedibenzodioxin, the most toxic

PCDD/F congener (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). These relative toxicities

are referred to as toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs; McLachlan et al., 1996). Stricter

controls are currently in place to limit the emissions of PCDD/Fs (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005).

Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) have been used in different industries, including cable

insulation, wood preservation, engine oil additives, electroplating masking compounds,

feedstock for dye production, dye carriers, capacitors and refractive testing oils (ADAS,

Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). In the UK, the total production was estimated at

6,650 t (NAEI, 2003), but these compounds have not been produced in the UK for 30 years.

Therefore, potential sources are thought to be the disposal routes of capacitors and engine

oil, where the majority of PCNs is produced, as well as during incineration, where PCNs have

been detected in incinerators emissions and are thought to be produced from the


combustion of PAHs (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Another source of PCNs

emissions are landfills (NAEI, 2003).

2.4.2.2. Bulk industry and domestic chemicals

A large amount of organic compounds are produced for industrial and domestic purposes.

Since these compounds comprise many chemicals, some have been selected on the basis of

their significance in wastewaters and water systems (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005). Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs), which is a catalogue of

potential harmful pollutant released or transferred to the environment from a variety of

sources, include 104 substances in the proposed changes to the UK PRTR water for 2005 to

2007 (EA, 2005). With the exception of 10 inorganic elements, all other compounds are

organic contaminants (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). This list includes POPs,

industrial bulk chemicals and pesticides. A set of criteria based on persistence,

bioaccumulation and toxicity has been developed by the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum

(CSF; Defra, 2005a) and applied to the high volume production chemicals (> 1000 t per year)

used in the UK. Approximately 70 compounds meet the criteria (Defra, 2005a).

Some of the largest volumes of bulk chemicals produced include surfactants used in the

manufacture of detergents plasticizing agents and solvents (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005). Total consumption of surfactants in Europe for industrial and domestic

purposes was 1.7 million tonnes in 2000, 85% of which used in domestic products (CETOX,

2000).

Linear alkylbenzene sulphonates (LAS) are widely used anionic surfactants in detergents and

cleaning products (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001). LAS are not generally regarded as toxic and

were not included within the list of Priority Hazardous Substance within the Water

Framework Directive (WFD), in the UK PRTR or recognised as a chemical of concern by the

UK CSF. Risk assessments concluded that the ecotoxicological parameters of LAS have been

sufficiently characterized and that the ecological risk of LAS is judged to be low (HERA, 2004;

OECD, 2005). LAS have also been reported to be readily degradable under aerobic

conditions, whereas it was stable under anaerobic conditions (Madsen et al., 1997).

Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) were extensively used as surfactants in hygienic products,

cosmetics, cleaning products, and in emulsifications of paints and pesticides (Erhardt and

Prüeß, 2001). These chemicals are listed in the WFD Priority Hazardous Substances due to

concerns regarding the endocrine disrupting properties exhibited by the breakdown

products of NPEs, the nonylphenols (NPs). It is included in the proposed UK PRTR list for

water and NP is on the UK CSF list of chemicals of concern. Therefore, the use of NPEs is

decreasing in the UK, with voluntary removal from the market occurring within a Voluntary

Agreement on risk reduction for NP and NPEs (Defra 2004b). 4-nonylphenol is a degradation

product of non-ionic alkylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants (Jones and Northcott, 2000).

Octylphenols, which are a related group of chemicals used as surfactants, are also a group

under review of the WFD Priority Substances and are included in the UK PRTR for water, the

UK CSF list and in the UK Voluntary Agreement on risk reduction for NP and NPEs (Defra,

2004b).


Plasticisers and additives are added to polymers to give plastics useful properties such as

resistance to fire, strength, flexibility and colour (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting,

2005). These chemicals are mainly used as softeners in plastic, and other uses include

additive functions in paints, lacquers, glues and inks (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001). DEHP is a

WFD proposed Priority Substance and is on the proposed UK PRTR for water but does not

appear on the UK CSF list.

There are five phthalate plasticizers: di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), diisodecyl phthalate

(DIDP) and diidononyl phthalate (DINP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) and di-n-butyl

phthalate (DBP). Of these compounds, DEHP is the most used and accounts for 51% of the

market (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001; HSDB, 2000). The majority of plasticizers used (> 90%) are

phthalate-based compounds and are mainly used to plasticize PVC (polyvinyl chloride;

CSTEE, 1999). Concentrations of phthalates in PVC range from 15 to 50%. Since phthalates

are not chemically combined with PVC they are slowly released to the environment during

use of after disposal (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Worldwide, global

production of DEHP was estimated to be approximately 2 million tonnes (Koch et al.,

2003a,b).

Adsorbable organic halogen compounds (AOX) are a wide range of compounds defined by

the binding of a halogen containing chemical to activated carbon. The formation of AOX has

been reported following drinking water disinfection by both chlorination and ozone. These

disinfection processes may lead to the formation of trihalomethanes with bromine

derivatives also formed if bromine is present in the water (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001). The

main sources of AOX arise from the use of chlorinated wood polymers (lignin, polyphenols

and cellulose) and printing inks in the bleaching process of paper pulp (Gibbs et al., 2005).

Other industries, including the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and waste

incineration are also important sources of AOX (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001).

Solvents are widely used chemicals within the industry and include chemicals such as

benzene, carbon tetrachloride, dichloroethane, tri- and tetrachloroethene, and di- and

trichloromethane. With the exception of dichloroethane, all these compounds are listed on

the proposed UK PRTR for water (EA, 2005). Benzene, dichloromethane and

trichloromethane are WFD priority substances.

Other substances that are used as intermediates during production/synthesis processes

include hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), which is a proposed UK PRTR list for water, and C10-13

chloroalkanes, that are included on both the UK PRTR and the UK CSF list. Lecloux (2004)

reported that the commercial production of HCBD has been virtually eliminated in Europe.

Flame retardants are used in the textile industry, in plastics, packaging material,

polyurethane foam for use in furniture and upholstery, electronic equipment, aircraft and

motor vehicles (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). There are 30 different

aromatic, aliphatic and inorganic flame retardants, most of which contain halogens (Litz,

2002). Flame retardants that are of concern are polybrominated diphenyls that have similar

properties to PCBs and have restricted usage, polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) and

tetrabromobiphenol A (TBBP-A) that have similar properties to dioxins (ADAS, Imperial

College, JBA Consulting, 2005). These compounds are persistent and may bioaccumulate in

the environment (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Brominated flame

retardants may make up as much of 10 to 30% of the plastics used (e.g. printed circuit


boards, computer housings and other electronic equipment; Eljarrat and Barceló, 2004).

Brominated flame retardants have been included in the list of priority pollutants of the

Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic

(OSPAR).

The most widely used PBDEs are nominally deca-, octa- and penta- brominated forms. Most

of the inputs into the environment are from volatilization during the service life of the foam,

from weathering and wearing of the products in which the foam is present and during

disposal and recycling operations (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). The most

important five brominated compounds have been prioritised for risk assessment at the

European level and two of these, pentaBDE and octaBDE, have been banned from the

European market in 2004 (EPCEU, 2003). PentaBDE is a WFD Priority Hazardous Substance

and is listed in the UK CSF (Defra, 2005a). Brominated diphenyl ethers are also on the

proposed UK PRTR for water (EA, 2005).

A series of reviews regarding the effects of brominated flame retardants in health and the

environment have been published in the literature: special volume of Environment

International (Vol 29 (6):663-885), on the State-of-Science and Trends of BFRs in the

Environment (Letcher, 2003), and also on BFRs in the environment (Wit, 2002).

Chlorobenzenes (CBs) were mainly used as intermediates during pesticide and other

chemicals synthesis. Examples of chlorobenzenes are 1,4-DCB, which is used in deodorants

and as a moth repellent, and the higher chlorinated benzenes TCBs and 1,2,3,4-TeCB, which

are used as components of dielectric fluids. All TCB isomers, PCB and HCB are included on

the UK PRTR list for water (EA, 2005).

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) was used for timber preservation and as a textile preservative.

Production of PCP was banned in the EU in 1992 and its use as intermediate in the chemical

industry was banned in 2000 (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). PCP is a

proposed UK PRTR list compound (EA, 2005). The main source of this compound is from

wastewater collection systems from industrial releases, and also diffuse inputs from in

surface water runoff.

The final compound to be considered is methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) that is widely

used as an oxygenate of unleaded petrol. It can be blended with petrol in any proportion up

to 15% to achieve the required octane level of the fuel. In the EU the maximum permitted

level is up to 5% by volume in petrol but average levels are lower than this value (~1.6% in

the EU and < 1% in the UK; ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). The estimated

annual production of MTBE in the EU is 3 million tonnes. MBTE is highly soluble in water

and mobile in soil and is generally reported as persistent (Squillace et al., 1998). In Europe, a

risk evaluation was performed for MTBE (CEC, 2001) and it was concluded that it is not

carcinogenic, mutagenic or a reproductive toxin and thus does not represent a risk to

human health or require further risk reduction measures to protect the terrestrial

environment (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). To protect groundwater,

measures were considered necessary for prevention of spillages and leakage of

underground storage tanks (CEC, 2001).


2.4.2.3. Human pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals from a wide spectrum of therapeutic classes are used in human and

veterinary medicine worldwide. Pharmaceutically active compounds are defined as

substances used for prevention, diagnosis or treatment of a disease and for restoring,

correcting, or modifying organic functions (Daughton and Ternes, 1999). Volumes of

selected pharmaceuticals sold in the UK and used in human therapy are summarized in

Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Volume of pharmaceutically active compounds sold in the UK (kg/year; data from

EA, 2008b)

Therapeutic class Compound UK, 2004

Antibiotics

Macrolides Azithromycin 756

Clarythromycin 8 807

Erythromycin 48 654

Penicillins Penicillin V 32 472

Amoxicillin 149 764

Sulfonamides Sulfamethoxazole 3 113

Sulfadiazine 362

Quinolones Ciprofloxacin 16 445

Tetracyclines Tetracycline 2 101

Other Trimethoprim 11 184

Analgesics and anti- inflammatories Acetaminophen 3 534 737

Acetylsalicylic acid 177 623

Diclofenac 35 361

Ibuprofen 330 292

Naproxen 33 580

Beta-blockers Acebutolol 943

Atenolol 49 547

Metoprolol 3 907

Propranolol 9 986

Hormones Progesterone 751

Lipid regulators

Fibrates Gemfibrozil 1 418

Fenofibrate 2 815

Statins Simvastatin 14 596

Selective serotonin Fluoxetine 4 826

reuptake inhibitors Paroxetine 2 663

Citalopram 4 799

Other classes

Antiepileptic Carbamazepine 52 245

In human therapy, most medical substances are administrated orally. After administration,

some drugs are metabolised, while others remain intact, before being excreted. Therefore, a

mixture of pharmaceuticals and their metabolites will enter municipal sewage and sewage

treatment plants (STP; Kümmerer, 2004). During sewage treatment, pharmaceuticals can

undergo different fates:

� microorganisms (e.g. activated sludge) degrade the pharmaceutical and convert it to

water and carbon dioxide (e.g. aspirin);


� the drug or metabolites do not degrade and if they are lipophilic they will remain in

the sludge and then be released onto soil following landspreading;

� the drug or metabolites do not degrade and if they are hydrophilic are released into

the environment via the treated wastewater effluent. When this wastewater is used

for irrigation pharmaceuticals will enter the soil environment.

Depending on their polarity, water solubility and persistence, some of these compounds

may not be completely eliminated or transformed during sewage treatment and, therefore,

pharmaceuticals and their metabolites may enter surface waters through domestic,

industrial, and hospital effluents (Monteiro and Boxall, 2010). Sorptive pharmaceuticals

could also present a risk to the environment through the disposal of sewage sludge on

agricultural soils and eventual runoff to surface waters or leaching to ground waters after

rainfall (Topp et al., 2008).

The impact of human pharmaceuticals on the environment will depend on the usage

amount, the degree of metabolism, degradation during storage prior to landspreading and

toxicity to terrestrial organisms.

Some pharmaceuticals, such as the sulphonamide and tetracycline antibiotics are used both

in human and in animal health and thus it is not possible to differentiate between the

sources entering the soil environment. In Europe, two thirds of all antibiotics are used in

human medicine and one third for veterinary purposes (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005).

The data concerning the occurrence of human pharmaceuticals is limited for the UK.

Nevertheless, most of the compounds summarized in Table 2.3 have been detected in

effluents and surface waters worldwide. Monteiro and Boxall (2010) recently published a

review on the occurrence and fate of human pharmaceuticals in different environmental

compartments.

2.4.2.4. Veterinary medicines

Whilst human medicines are only used in therapy, veterinary medicines are widely used in

feed additives for prevention, as growth promoters, and to maintain animal health. In

intensive production systems, veterinary medicines are used routinely and wastes from

these facilities tend to contain significant residues of drugs (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005). Major veterinary medicine groups that are in use in the UK are

summarized in Table 2.4.


Table 2.4 Major veterinary medicines in use in the UK (Boxall et al., 2004)

Group Chemical class Major active ingredients

Ectoparasiticides Organophosphates Diazinon

Synthetic pyrethroids Flumethrin

Cypermethrin

Amidines Amitraz

Antibiotics Tetracyclines Oxytetracycline

Chlortetracycline

Tetracycline

Sulphonamides Sulfadiazine

Sulfadimidine

β-Lactams Amoxicillin

Procaine penicillin

Procaine benzylpenicillin

Aminoglycosides Neomycin

Apramycin

Macrolides Tylosin

Fluoroquinolones Enrofloxacin

2,4-Diaminopyrimidines Trimethoprim

Pleuromutilins Tiamulin

Lincosamides Lincomycin

Clyndamycin

Endectocides Macrolide endectins Ivermectin

Doramectin

Eprimomectin

Pyrimidines Pyrantel

Morantel

Benzamidazoles Triclabendazole

Fenbendazole

Others Levamisole

Nitroxynil

Hormones Altrenogest

Progesterone

Medroxyprogesterone

Delmadinone

Methyltestosterone

Estradiol benzoate

Ethinyl estradiol

Antifungals Biguanide/gluconate

Azole

Others

Chlorhexidine

Miconazole

Griseofulvin

Anaesthetics Isoflurane

Halothane

Procaine

Lido/lignocaine

Euthanasia products Pentobarbitone

Analgesics Metamyzole

Tranquilizers phenobarbitone

NSAIDs Phenylbutazone

Caprofen

Enteric bloat preparations Dimethicone

Poloxalene


For animals on pasture, veterinary medicines are directly excreted onto the soil and might

be released as the parent compound or/and metabolites. When the animals are housed, the

slurry and manure produced is collected and after a period of storage, applied onto land

(ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

Due to the large number of compounds in use, environmental monitoring of the compounds

used as veterinary medicines is impractical. Therefore, Boxall et al. (2003) proposed a two-

stage scheme for identifying and prioritizing compounds that have the greatest potential for

environmental impact.

The first stage involved two steps: firstly, groups of substances were ranked according to

their usage: usage higher than 10 tonnes per year were classed as high; usage quantities

between 1 and 10 tonnes per year were classed as medium; those used in quantities below

1 tonne per year were classed as low; compounds for which usage could not be determined

were classed as unknown. Secondly, the potential for substances to enter the environment

was assessed based on information on the target group, route of administration,

metabolism and the potential for the substance to degrade during storage. Substances were

then classified as having high, medium, low or unknown potential to enter the environment.

In the second stage, a hazard assessment for compounds with high, medium or unknown

potential to enter the environment and of high, medium, low or unknown usage is used.

Compounds with medium potential and low usage are compounds with low potential to

enter the environment and are not required to undergo hazard assessment. The compounds

identified as having the greatest potential to cause environmental impacts from this

prioritization exercise are listed in Appendix A.

2.4.2.5. Pesticides

Approximately 85% of a pesticide applied to crops may reach soil where it can undergo

biological or chemical transformation (Margni et al., 2002). Some pesticides are mobile and

readily biodegradable whereas others can be persistent, accumulate in the environment and

be toxic to soil organisms (HRI, 2002). Application of sludge has been shown to increase the

degradation of some pesticides (Sanchez et al., 2004). However, even if the pesticide

degrades, Sinclair and Boxall (2003) reported that 30% of pesticide breakdown products

were more toxic than the parent compound.

In livestock industry, farm operations are a significant source of pesticides to surface and

groundwaters, and soil can also be contaminated by pesticide residues during washing and

cleaning of used materials.

In sewage sludge, there is a concern over persistent pesticide compounds (especially

organochlorines) due to the potential soil accumulation and long-term impacts in the

environment (Bowen et al., 2003). Modern pesticides have been developed with higher

biodegradability in the environment and also during wastewater treatment and thus their

presence is less of a concern than in the past (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).


In compost, a number of chlorinated pesticides have been found but generally in very small

amounts. Composts made with wood treated with high persistence/toxicity pesticides

usually used as wood preservatives should be excluded from the production of marketable

compost products or for land application.

However, the implications for soil quality mainly arise from direct applications of pesticides

to crops and soils and from the application of animal manures rather than from inputs via

agricultural application of sewage sludge.

2.4.2.6. Biocides and personal care products

Biocides and personal care products are widely used in domestic products such as clothing,

furnishings and hygiene products (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). They are

discharged into sewage treatment plants and thus enter soils via the application of sewage

sludge onto fields or when wastewater effluents are used for irrigation.

Triclosan is an antimicrobial agent that is used in a variety of products. Triclosan is used as

an antiseptic agent, as a preservative in medical products, including hand disinfecting soaps,

medical skin creams, and dental products (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). It

can also be found in everyday products such as toothpaste, mouthwash, soaps, household

product cleaners, and also in textiles, shoes, and carpets. In Europe, approximately 350

tonnes of triclosan are used per year (Singer et al., 2002).

Organotins are the most widely used organometallic compounds that are used as

agrochemicals and general biocides with a wide range of applications. Some organotins,

such as tributyl-, triphenyl- and tricyclohexyltin derivatives are very toxic to the

environment (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001).

Musk xylene and musk ketone are used as substitutes for natural musk in perfumes,

cosmetics, soaps and washing agents, fabric softeners, and air fresheners (Erhardt and

Prüeß, 2001).

2.4.2.7. Endocrine Disrupting chemicals

While endocrine disrupting compounds can occur in many of the chemical classes described

in the previous sections, the increasing concern over these substances justifies a separate

category. A significant industrial xenobiotic oestrogen mimic is 4-tert-nonylphenol, which

has been implied to be the dominant endocrine disruptor in some industrialised river

reaches (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Polybrominated flame retardants,

dioxins, and furans may possess some endocrine active properties. These compounds

bioaccumulate, and additive effects may mean that low concentrations of xenobiotic

endocrine active substances will have a cumulative negative effect (Johnson and Jürgens,

2003).


2.4.3. Pathogens

In England and Wales, the number of reported cases of food-borne illness was estimated to

be approximately 1.34 million in 2000 (Adak et al., 2002). The main causative agents were

bacteria, especially Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and Listeria, the protozoan

pathogens Cryptosporidium and Giardia, and viruses (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005). Routes by which pathogens may enter the food chain include the

application of organic manures and water applied to crops, especially ready to eat crops

that are not generally cooked before consumption (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting,

2005). It is important to note that the use of manures or water containing pathogens does

not necessarily result in a higher risk to food safety since subsequent treatments such as

washing or cooking may limit the potential for disease transmission.

Sources of biological contaminants to soils are through the application of sewage sludge and

septic tank sludge, livestock manures, irrigation water, compost and industrial wastes. From

these sources, as a result of the large quantities involved, the common prevalence of

pathogens and the relative lack of controls in place, the application of livestock manures to

agricultural land and deposition during grazing in the field is the most important source of

enteric pathogens to soils (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).


3. CONCENTRATIONS OF CONTAMINANTS IN MATERIALS SPREAD ONTO

LAND

3.1. Sewage sludge

3.1.1. Introduction

Within this report, the term sewage sludge only covers residual sludge from sewage plants

treating domestic or urban waste waters and from other sewage plants treating waste

waters of a composition similar to domestic and urban waste waters. This sludge has been

treated by a biological, chemical or heat treatment that reduces fermentability and possible

health hazards associated from its use. In most cases, data collected did not specify the form

of the sludge (e.g. pelletized, cake, etc).

Sewage sludge is the residue collected following treatment of waste water. Sewage sludge

contains significant proportions of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter that, when

used in agriculture, are enough to supply nutrient requirements for most crops (DoE,

1996a). Other benefits arising from sludge application are stabilisation and improvement of

soil structure, improvement of pH, and increased water holding capacity (helps reducing

flood risk; DoE, 1996a). However, it may also contain traces of many contaminating

substances used in our modern society. During wastewater treatment, potentially toxic

elements and hydrophobic organic contaminants in wastewater largely transfer to the

sewage sludge, which may cause potential implications on the further usage of sludge (IC

Consultants, 2001). The production of sewage sludge is increasing and its use as fertilizer to

agricultural fields is consistent with the EC policy of waste recycling. However, sludge quality

must be improved and monitored to secure that the application to land is the most

sustainable option (IC Consultants, 2001).

3.1.2. Treatment

Raw or untreated sewage sludge cannot be applied onto agricultural land, whether it is used

for food or non-food purposes (WRc, 2009). Therefore, sewage sludge needs to be treated

before land application. Conventional treated sludge refers to sludge treated by biological,

chemical or heat treatment, and ensures that 99% of pathogens have been eliminated (The

Safe Sludge matrix, 2001). The most common form of treatment is anaerobic digestion.

Enhanced treated sludge is a term to describe treatment processes that are capable of

eliminating the pathogen Salmonella and 99.9999% pathogens (The Safe Sludge matrix,

2001).

Examples of sewage sludge treatment processes are summarized in Table 3.1.


Table 3.1 Examples of sewage sludge treatment processes (DoE, 1996a) Process Descriptions

Sludge Pasteurisation Minimum of 30 minutes at 70°C or minimum of 4 hours at 55°C (or appropriate

intermediate conditions), followed in all cases by primary mesophilic anaerobic

digestion.

Mesophilic Anaerobic

Digestion

In a primary sludge digestion, a mean retention period of at least 12 days at a

temperature of 35±3°C or of at least 20 days primary sludge digestion at a

temperature of 25±3°C, followed in each case by a secondary sludge digestion

which provides a mean retention period of at least 14 days.

Thermophilic Aerobic

Digestion

Mean retention period of at least 7 days digestion. All sludge to be subject to a

minimum of 55°C for a period of at least 4 hours.

Composting (Windrows or

Aerated Piles)

The compost must be maintained at 40°C for at least 5 days and for 4 hours

during this period at a minimum of 55°C within the body of the pile followed by a

period of maturation adequate to ensure that the compost reaction process is

substantially complete.

Lime Stabilisation of

Liquid Sludge

Addition of lime to raise pH to greater than 12.0 and sufficient to ensure that the

pH is not less than 12 for a minimum period of 2 hours. The sludge can then be

used directly.

Liquid Storage Storage of untreated liquid sludge for a minimum period of 3 months.

Dewatering and Storage Conditioning of untreated sludge with lime or other coagulants followed by

dewatering and storage of the cake for a minimum period of 3 months. If sludge

has been subject to primary mesophilic anaerobic digestion, storage to be for a

minimum period of 14 days.

3.1.3. Contaminants

3.1.3.1. PTEs

During sewage treatment, the majority of metals transfer from wastewater to sewage

sludge and may accumulate. The application of sludge to land is mainly dictated by nutrient

content (phosphorus and nitrogen). However, the sludge quality regarding potentially toxic

elements should be considered in terms of the long-term sustainable use of sludge onto

land (IC Consultants, 2001).

Concentrations

Concentrations of PTEs and elements reported in sewage sludge in the UK are summarised

in Table 3.2.


Table 3.2 Concentrations of metals/elements in UK sewage sludge in mg/kg dry weight

Metal/element

Sewage sludge survey

EA, 2007 Data from Gendebien et al., 1999 Sleeman, 1984

England and Wales England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK (n=555)

Mean Mean Median n Mean Median n Mean Median n Range Mean

Antimony NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-572 8

Arsenic NA 6 2.5 861 3.2 3.67 35 NA NA NA <2-123 6

Barium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 23-3104 323

Bismuth NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-557 10

Bromine NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4-1049 38

Cadmium 1.56 3.4 1.6 1049 1.4 1.2 57 2.1 1.4 27 <2-152 9

Chromium 104.10 163 24 1220 81 37 59 50 29 27 4-23195 197

Cobalt NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-617 10

Copper 311.27 565 376 1223 620 254 59 583 350 27 69-6140 589

Fluorine NA 224 161 820 91 65 25 NA NA NA NA NA

Gallium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-15 3

Germanium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-9 <2

Iron NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2480-106812 16299

Lead 138.26 221 96 1218 271 170 59 156 106 27 43-2644 398

Manganese NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 55-13902 376

Mercury 1.03 2.3 1.4 1200 2.5 2 49 2.4 2 27 <2-140 4

Molybdenum NA 8 5 883 2.9 3.65 40 NA NA NA <2-154 5

Nickel 37.13 59 20 1219 31 20 56 38 22.5 27 9-932 61

Niobium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-41 5

Rubidium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-232 23

Selenium NA 2 1.6 879 0.86 1.08 25 NA NA NA <2-15 3

Silver NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-1252 25

NA- not available

n – number of samples


Table 3.2 (cont.) Concentrations of metals/elements in UK sewage sludge in mg/kg dry weight

Metal/element

Sewage sludge survey

EA, 2007 Data from Gendebien et al., 1999 Sleeman, 1984

England and Wales England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland UK (n=555)

Mean Mean Median n Mean Median n Mean Median n Range Mean

Strontium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 45-1335 158

Tellurium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-2 <2

Thallium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-5 <2

Tin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 19-683 90

Titanium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 355-11629 1677

Tungsten NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-1418 7

Uranium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-18 2

Vanadium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7-660 29

Yttrium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA <2-34 8

Zinc 763.49 802 559 1223 644 508 50 668 745 27 279-27600 1144

Zirconium NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 14-2500 91

NA- not available



3.1.3.2. Organic compounds

Adsorption to the sludge is the fate of many organic compounds during sewage treatment

(ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). The range of organic contaminants detected

in sewage sludge is much greater than the number of potentially toxic elements in sludge

that are monitored and controlled, with 42 compounds being regularly detected in sewage

sludge (IC Consultants, 2001). The Water Framework Directive (WFD) aims to cease the

emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances including PAHs, PCBs and

PCDD/Fs. PAHs and PCDD/Fs produced during incineration are subjected to stringent air

quality emission standards and therefore, further reducing the inputs of these organic

compounds as well as PCBs in sewage sludge seems unlikely (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005).

Concentrations

A summary of the range concentrations of organic contaminants by class reported in

sewage sludge in the UK is presented in Table 3.3. All data, including individual compounds

can be found in Appendix B.


mean reported within the class) for organic contaminants detected in UK sewage sludge in

mg/kg dry weight (unless otherwise stated; UKWIR, 1995; Wild and Jones, 1992; Wilson et

al., 1997; Wild et al., 1993; Wang et al., 1995; Rogers et al., 1989; Nicholls et al., 2001;

Bowen et al., 2003; McIntyre and Lester, 1982; McIntyre and Lester, 1984; Stevens et al.,

2001; Stevens et al., 2003; Leschber, 2006; Sewart et al., 1995; Jones and Northcott, 2000)

Contaminant Minimum Maximum Mean (highest)

Alkyl and aromatic amine 2.2 3.8 2.32

Carbonyl 1.4 2.3 10.1

Chlorinated phenols 0.0004 93.3 1.36

Chlorobenzenes ND 192000 108875

Halogenated aliphatics 0.0001 93.1 7.97

Monocyclic hydrocarbons

and heterocycles 0.0046 22.1 6.3

Non-halogenated

aliphatics NA NA 540

Organotins 0.01 1.3 0.36

Pesticides ND 70 0.042

Phthalate acid esters/

Plasticizers trace 430 NA

∑ PAHs 1 246 36

∑ PCBs 44 μg/kg dw 180 μg/kg dw 81 μg/kg dw

∑PCDD/Fs (C11-C18) 8.880 μg/kg dw 428.00 μg/kg dw 75.3 μg/kg dw

PCNs nd 78 μg/kg dw 31 μg/kg dw

Surfactants 450 25300 NA

Synthetic musks ND 81 27

dw – dry weight


Persistent organic pollutants controls introduced between 1980 and 1990 have been

effective in reducing the main sources of PAHs, PCBs and PCDDs/Fs (Smith, 2000). These

controls also reduced inputs to urban wastewater and therefore concentrations of POPs in

sewage sludge were reduced.

A screening study performed by Bowen et al (2003) showed that some Priority Substances

are present at measurable concentrations. In the same study, NPEs in sewage sludge in UK

sewage treatment plants (STPs) with concentrations ranging from 1.0 to 350 μg/L with an

average value of 79.5 μg/L (Bowen et al., 2003). In Europe and in the UK, NPE

concentrations (including nonylphenol) in sludge ranged from 10 to over 1000 mg/kg, which

would exceed the proposed limit of 10 mg/kg discussed by the European Commission in

proposals for the future revision of the sludge directive (EC, 2000b). Octyl phenols have not

been detected in UK STPs (Bowen et al., 2003).

Chlorobenzenes have been reported as one of the important groups of POPs in sewage

sludge and sludge-treated soil (Wang and Jones, 1994; Beck et al., 1995). In contrast, Bowen

et al (2003) did not detected chlorobenzenes in influents to STPs due to their withdrawal

from use.

Bowen et al. (2003) also reported that concentrations of solvents in crude sewage were very

variable between sites and substances. Carbon tetrachloride was below detection limits in

STPs and benzene and dichloroethane were almost entirely below detection limits.

Trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene were detected at 14 and 21 STPs (out on 30 STPs

sampled), respectively. Dichloromethane and trichloromethane (chloroform) were found in

most influent samples up to 5 μg/L. Bowen et al (2003) did not detect C10-13 chloroalkanes

and HCBD in any influent from STPs in the UK, and concluded that since they are used as

intermediates in industrial processes they are unlikely to be present in significant quantities

in diffuse inputs to sewerage systems.

DEHP is one of the most frequently detected priority pollutants in industrial and municipal

sewage sludge. DEHP has a draft limit proposed for sludge of 100 mg/kg dry weight (EC,

2000b).

A large part of LAS is adsorbed onto sewage sludge during the primary sewage treatment

and therefore will not go through the secondary sewage treatment, which is the aeration

tank, and thus not degraded during sewage treatment (De Wolfe and Feitjel, 1997).

In a study of 12 liquid digested sewage sludge’s, no correlations have been found between

concentrations of 15 volatile organic compounds (VOC) (e.g. chloroform, benzene), the

volume of industrial input to STPs, influent treatment, population served and sludge dry

solids content (Wilson et al., 1994).

Pentachlorophenol was not detected in any influent samples from a UK STP in screening

study performed by Bowen et al (2003) and it was concluded that the widespread

occurrence of PCP in wastewater effluent and sludge is very unlikely.


Regarding pharmaceutical compounds, data on the concentrations of pharmaceuticals in

sludge applied to land is very limited for the UK. Removal of pharmaceuticals during sewage

treatment is very variable and depends on the pharmaceutical. Whereas high removal has

been reported for some pharmaceuticals (e.g. salicylic acid, acetaminophen), very low

removal has been reported for others (e.g. carbamazepine, diatrizoate; Monteiro and

Boxall, 2010). Golet et al. (2002) and Göbel et al. (2005) reported the occurrence of

antibiotics in sewage sludge samples from Switzerland. Average concentrations of

sulfonamide and macrolide antibiotics, and trimethoprim ranged from 28 to 68 μg/kg of dry

weight (Göbel et al., 2005). The antidepressant fluoxetine was detected in treated sludge

samples from nine different STPs in the US (Kinney et al., 2006). In North America, the

occurrence of carbamazepine (Kinney et al., 2006) and its major metabolites has been

reported in raw and treated sludge samples (Miao et al., 2005). In Germany, Ternes et al.

(2002) detected estrone and 17β-estradiol in activated and digested sludge up to 37 μg/kg

and 49 μg/kg, respectively.

Runoff of pharmaceuticals from an agricultural field following the application of sewage

sludge has also been reported (Topp et al., 2008). Recent investigations also show that

around 90% of the potential oestrogenic activity in urban wastewater is reduced during

sewage treatment and that less than 3% is transferred to the sludge (ADAS, Imperial

College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

3.1.3.3. Pathogens

Concerns of using sewage sludge in agriculture led to the development of the “Safe Sludge

Matrix” between the UK Water Industry and the British Retail Consortium in January 1999.

Under the terms of the “Matrix”, the use of raw sewage sludge on agricultural land growing

food crops ceased at the end of 1999 and sludge used to grow non-food crops ceased at the

end of 2005 (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Therefore, conventional sewage

sludge treatment ensures that 99% of pathogens have been destroyed and enhanced

treatment of sewage sludge ensures that it is free from Salmonella and 99.9999% of

pathogens have been destroyed (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

3.1.4. Legislation

Legislation and voluntary initiatives for the use of sewage sludge on land and what is

covered within the legislation is summarized in Table 3.4. The Sewage Sludge Directive (EC,

1986) regulates the use of sludge in agriculture to prevent harmful effects for soil, animals

and humans and this is being reviewed this year (2009).


Table 3.4 Legislation/ voluntary initiatives on the use of sludge Title Measures P/L/V PTEs OCs Pathogens

EC Sludge Directive 86/278/EEC

(1986)

European legislation on sludge use in

agriculture L D I D

Sludge (Use in Agriculture)

Regulations (1989)

Implements Sludge Directive. Sets

maximum permitted heavy metal

contents in soils where sludge can be

applied, and maximum sludge metal

loading rates

L D I D

Draft revision of Sludge

Directive (suspended)

Proposes new limits on heavy metal and

OC additions with sludge L D D D

Draft Revised Sludge (Use in

Agriculture) Regulations (and

associated revised Code of

Practice)

Enshrines the requirements of the Safe

Sludge Matrix L D I D

Manual of Good Practice for the

Use of Sewage Sludge in

Forestry (1992)

Forestry Commission. Limits for sludge

application in forestry (same as for

agriculture)

V D I D

Manual of Good Practice for the

Use of Sewage Sludge in Land

Reclamation (1999)

WRc. Limits for sludge application in land

restoration (same as for agriculture) V D I D

Code of Practice for Agriculture

(1996) Guidelines based on sludge regulations V D I D

Safe Sludge Matrix (2000)

Specifies treated sludge types that can

be applied to agricultural land and

harvest/grazing intervals

V I I D

PTEs – potentially toxic elements; OCs – organic compounds

P-Policy, L- Legislation, V-Voluntary measure

D - Direct, I - Indirect . Legislation has a direct effect if its purpose is to control/limit inputs of a contaminant to soil.

Indirect legislation may have implications for contaminant inputs to soil without this being its primary purpose.

Contaminant limits available in legislation, policy or voluntary initiatives for sewage sludge

applied to land in Europe and UK are summarised in Table 3.5. The UK regulations do not set

maximum metal concentration limits values in the applied sludge, but instead set maximum

concentrations limits in soils receiving sludge and maximum annual metal loadings rates, as

a 10 year average.


Table 3.5 Contaminants limits available in legislation, policy or voluntary initiatives for sewage sludge applied to land in Europe and UK (in

mg/kg dry matter, unless otherwise stated)

Contaminants

European Union UK

Sewage sludge Soils following the application of sewage sludge

Current

Sewage sludge

directive 86/278/EEC

Proposed

Working Document

on sludge- 3rd

draft

Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations

1989 Code of Practice for the Agricultural Use of Sewage sludge

PTEs /elements

Limit according to soil pH

Maximum permitted annual average rate of

PTE addition over a 10 year period (kg/ha)

5.0<5.5 5.5<6.0 6.0-7.0 >7.0 5.0<5.5 5.5<6.0 6.0-7.0 >7.0

Zn 2500-4000 2500 200 250 300 450 200 200 200 300 15

Cu 1000-1750 1000 80 100 135 200 80 100 135 200 7.5

Ni 300-400 300 50 60 75 110 50 60 75 110 3

For pH 5.0 and above

Pb 750-1200 750 300 N/A N/A N/A 300

N/A

0.15

Cd 20-40 10 3 N/A N/A N/A 3 15

Hg 16-25 10 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 0.1

Cr N/A 1000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 400 15

Mb N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 0.2

Se N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 0.15

As N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 0.7

Fluoride N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 500 20

Organic Compounds

AOX N/A 500 N/A N/A N/A

LAS N/A 2600 N/A N/A N/A

DEHP N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A

NPE N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A

PAH N/A 6 N/A N/A N/A

PCB N/A 0.8 N/A N/A N/A

PCDD/Fs N/A 100 ng TE/kg dm N/A N/A N/A

NA – not available


3.2. Septic tank sludge

3.2.1. Introduction

About 5% of the UK population is served by septic tanks and cesspits. There are no

data on the quantities or composition of septic sludge applied to agricultural land.

“Septic tank sludge” is defined as the residual sludge from septic tanks.

3.2.2. Contaminants

3.2.2.1. Heavy metal

Data on the chemical composition of septic tank sludge indicated that the Zn content

was 650 mg/kg dry solids, which was less than the average zinc content in sewage

sludge (802 mg/kg dry solids; ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

Whereas no other data was found for concentrations of PTEs in septic tank sludge, it

has been reported that levels of metals in this sludge are usually low and that no

metal contamination should arise when it is applied to land (Carlton-Smith and

Coker, 1985).

3.2.2.2. Organic contaminants

As for sewage sludge, a range of organic compounds including pharmaceuticals,

hormones, fragrances, and personal care products are expected to be present in

septic tank sludge.

3.2.2.3. Pathogens

In regard to pathogen content, these wastes have a high potential to present a

microbiological risk to man and animals since they mainly consist of human excreta

and wastewaters (Davis and Rudd, 1999). No published data was found reporting

amounts of pathogens in septic tank sludge. However, it can be assumed that the

pathogen content will be similar to untreated sewage sludge.

Septic tank sludge is not covered by the “Safe Sludge Matrix” and can only be applied

to land under a Waste Management Licence (SI, 2005/1728). It is likely that septic

tank sludge is disposed into a sewage treatment plant and not directly applied to

land. However, in some cases septic tank sludge is still spread untreated to land (EA,

2008a).

Since septic tank sludge is not covered by the “Safe Sludge Matrix” several options

are available for its use or disposal:

- sludge can be taken to a sewage treatment works under a paragraph 10A

exemption under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales)

Regulations 2007 (EA, 2009).;

- taken to an appropriate licensed/authorised waste facility; or

- spread to land under a Waste Management License.


3.3. Livestock manure

3.3.1. Introduction

Within this report, the livestock manures considered are cattle manure (including

dairy and beef slurry and dairy and beef farmyard manure), pig slurry and pig

farmyard manure, sheep manure, horse manure, poultry manure (including layer

manure and poultry litter ash) and broiler litter (including broilers, turkeys, pullets,

other hens and other poultry).

Livestock manures are produced from animal production activities, with solid

manures comprising a mix of excreta and bedding (normally cereal straw, wood

shavings and sawdust), and liquid manures (i.e. slurry) composed of a mixture of

excreta and waste water from farming activities (SORP, 2003). Around 96 million

tonnes of farm manures are applied each year in the UK (Hickman et al., 2009). In

2003, from the total amount of applied manure, 81% were from cattle, 11% from

pigs, 5% from poultry and 3% from sheep (SORP, 2003).

Farm manures, both solid and slurries are beneficially applied to agricultural land to

meet crop nutrient requirements and to improve soil fertility. Most of the nutrients

contained in livestock diets are excreted in dung and urine. Hence, manures contain

valuable amounts of major plant nutrients (i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus and

potassium), as well as other nutrients such as sulphur and magnesium and trace

elements (SORP, 2003). The fertiliser value of manures and slurries is very variable

from farm to farm and dependent on a range of factors including the type of

livestock (species, breed and age), diet, type of production, housing system and

waste handling system (Gendebien et al., 2001). However, farm manures can contain

unwanted compounds such as PTEs, organic compounds (especially veterinary

medicines) and pathogens.

As there is a limited retail market for these materials, agriculture and land

restoration/reclamation provide the most sustainable re-use and recycling routes

(SORP, 2003).

3.3.2. Treatment

Fresh solid manure or slurry can be applied to land, but should not be applied within

12 months of harvesting a ready-to-eat crop, including a minimum period of 6

months between the manure application and drilling/planting of the crop (Hickman

et al., 2009). This is because manures can contain pathogens that may cause food

borne illness. Therefore, the management and handling of farm manures,

particularly the length of time they are stored, are important factors in the survival

of microorganisms (Hickman et al., 2009). Examples of treatments for farm manures

are presented in Table 3.6.


Table 3.6 Examples of treatments for farm manures (Hickman et al., 2009)

Treatment Definition

Batch storage Solid manures and slurries are batch stored for at least 6 months (with no

additions of fresh manure during this period).

Composting

The manure should be treated as a batch and turned regularly (at

least twice within the first 7 days) either with a front-end loader or

preferably with a purpose-built compost turner. This should generate high

temperatures over a period of time (e.g. above 55oC for 3 days) which are

effective in killing pathogens and this temperature should be monitored.

The compost needs to mature as part of the treatment process. The whole

process should last for at least 3 months.

Anaerobic digestion

Farm manures are put into a digester to produce digested solids and

liquids, which can be both used as fertilizers. It also produces biogas that

can be used as a fuel or to generate energy.

Lime treatment of

slurry Addition of quick lime to raise the pH to 12 for at least 2 hours. It is an

effective method of inactivation of pathogens.

3.3.3. Contaminants

3.3.3.1. PTEs

PTEs , especially copper and zinc are present in livestock feeds at background

concentration and can still be added as supplements for health and welfare reasons

or as growth promoters. A number of international authorities and scientific bodies

have published recommendations on trace elements allowances for farm livestock.

There is evidence that the immune status and health of livestock may be enhanced

with certain trace elements at levels above those considered to be necessary to

maintain normal metabolism, growth production and reproduction (ADAS, 2002).

Concentrations

Concentration of PTEs in livestock manures and poultry litter ash are presented in

Table 3.7.


Table 3.7 Typical concentrations of PTEs in manures (ADAS, 2009)

Metal

/element

Livestock manures 2Poultry litter ash

Dairy slurry

(n=25)

Dairy FYM

(n=18)

Beef FYM

(n=15)

Pig slurry

(n=49)

Pig FYM

(n=26)

Layer manure

(n=17)

1Broiler litter

(n=19) Fibrophos Cropcare

Mean (Min; Max) in mg/kg dw

As NA NA NA NA NA 1.33 (0.29; 4.27) 0.67 (0.16; 2.35) NA NA

Cd 0.16 (0.05; 1.17) 0.37 (0.05; 1.09) 0.32 (0.05; 0.703) 0.3 (0.05; 7.45) 0.44 (0.05; 1.26) 0.65 (0.05; 1.5) 0.26 (0.05; 0.73) NA NA

Cr 2.94 (0.5; 13.83) 14.85 (0.05; 76.7) 16.92 (1.83; 43.10) 2.29 (0.5; 15.68) 22.65 (1.96; 190) 4.94 (1.81; 9.34) 4.64 (1.49; 10.3) NA NA

Cu 175.5 (27.3; 1090) 51.5 (7.49; 164) 40.07 (12.40; 129) 279 (19.9; 1333) 199 (25.8; 707) 56.7 (7.97; 98.5) 84.5 (40.6; 127) 500 291

Mb NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 30 11

Ni 4.66 (2.02; 18.75) 11.28 (2.5; 40.5) 28.71 (2.5; 345) 3.49 (2.5; 30.9) 12.01 (2.5; 171) 19.86 (2.5; 177) 5.38 (2.5; 28.9) NA NA

Pb 3.36 (1; 14.77) 6.71 (1.0; 24) 7.68 (1; 23.2) 3.92 (1; 16.2) 13.87 (1; 109) 3.56 (1; 6.08) 2.92 (1; 7.24) NA NA

Se NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 3

Zn 232 (49; 1090) 141 (33; 311) 143 (35.8; 270) 870 (66; 5174) 631 (146; 1830) 287 (55.9; 463) 346 (152; 526) 2000 162

FYM- farm yard manure

NA-not available

1- Includes broilers, turkeys, pullets other hens and other poultry.

2 - Data from analysis provided on the company websites or in published product information brochures. This material is sold as a fertiliser.



Some farm manures may contain contaminants such as residual hormones,

antibiotics, pesticides and other undesirable substances (Kuepper, 2003). Detergents

and cleaning agents might also be found since these are used to clean facilities.

Steven and Jones (2003) quantified PCDD/Fs in samples of cattle, pig, sheep and

chicken manure. TEQs ranged from 0.19 ng TEQ/kg dry solids for pig manure to 20 ng

TEQ/kg dry solids for one cattle manure sample.

Boxall et al. (2003, 2004) have reviewed the environmental significance of veterinary

medicines in the UK. Data for soil and manure concentrations of veterinary

medicines were very limited for the UK. The available data presented by Boxall et al.

(2003; 2004) for animal manures are listed in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8 Concentrations of veterinary medicines found in animal manures (Boxall et

al., 2004)

Compound Therapeutic use Concentration detected in ng/L

(unless otherwise stated) Country

Cattle faeces/manure

[14

C] ceftiotur Antibiotic 11.3 – 216.1 mg kg-1

(equivalent) USA

Chlortetracycline Antibiotic 7.6 ± 2.7 μg kg-1

Germany

Ivermectin Endectocide

12-75 μg kg-1

0.3 ± 0.0 – 9.0 ±0.7 mg kg-1

0.2-3.8 mg kg-1

(dry weight)

0.07-0.36 mg kg-1

(wet weight)

0.353 mg kg-1

13-80 μg kg-1

0.24-0.27

USA

Denmark

Tanzania

Australia

USA

USA

USA

Monensin Coccidiostat 0.7 – 4.7 Canada

Sulphadimethoxine Antimicrobial 300-900 mg kg-1

Italy

Tetracycline Antibiotic 2.5 ± 1.2 μg kg-1

Germany

Pig faeces/manure

Chlortetracycline Antibiotic 3.4 – 1001.6 μg kg-1

Germany

Ivermectin Endectocide 0.22 – 0.24 mg kg-1

USA

Tetracycline Antibiotic 44.4 – 132.4 μg kg-1

Germany

Sheep faeces/manure

Ivermectin Endectocide 0.63 – 0.714 mg kg-1

USA

Poultry faeces/manure

Chlortetracycline Antibiotic 22.5 μg g-1

Canada

[14

C]narasin Antibiotic 1 ± 0.3 – 725 ± 60.3 μg kg-1

(equivalent) USA

Horse faeces/manure

Ivermectin Endectocide 0.05 – 8.47 μg g-1

USA

In another study, Haller et al. (2002) investigated six different sources of slurry from

cattle and pig farms that used medicinal feed during a study to develop appropriate

analytical techniques for determination of antibiotic in manures. Sulfamethazine was

detected in all six samples whereas five samples contained its metabolite N-acetyl-

sulfamethazine in concentrations 3 to 50 times below concentrations of the parent

compound. Although this metabolite does not have antimicrobial characteristics, it

can be transformed onto the parent compound in manure (Berger et al., 1986 as


cited in Haller et al., 2002). Total sulfonamide concentrations (sulfamethazine +

sulfathiazole) were above than 20 mg/kg (fresh weight). Other sulfonamides such as

sulfaguanidine, sulfadiazine, sulfamethoxazole and sulfadimethoxine were not

detected in any of the samples. The slurry was collected over a period of time,

including when no veterinary medicines were being administrated. In consequence,

the manure was diluted with material from medication free time periods. The extent

to which antibiotic contaminated slurry is diluted in this way depends on the size of

the slurry storage tank, relative to the period over which the drug is being

administered, and the rate of slurry production. Furthermore, degradation will take

place during the storage period, suggesting that manure excreted directly in the field

has the potential to contain much higher concentrations of antibiotic than material

from housed stock, which may be diluted with uncontaminated slurry (Boxall et al.,

2004). Reported concentrations of antibiotics in manures from this study are

presented in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Sulfonamide and trimethoprim residues in manure samples in mg kg-1

fresh

weight (Haller et al., 2002)

Compound Mother pigs with farrows Fattening pigs Fattening

calves

Sample A B C D E F

Sulfamethazine 8.7 (8.9) 5.5 3.3 0.23 0.13 (0.11) 3.2

4-N-acetyl-sulfamethazine 2.6 (2.7) 0.59 0.15 ND D D

Sulfathiazole 12.4 (12.4) D ND 0.10 0.17 (0.17) ND

Trimethoprim D ND ND ND ND ND

Dried mass content (%) 3.3 3.4 1.8 3.7 3.2 1.1

Results determined by external calibration (and determined by standard addition in parenthesis for

samples A and E)

D – detected, but below 0.1 mg/kg

ND- not detected

3.3.3.3. Pathogens

Animal manures contain pathogenic elements in variable quantities depending on

the animal health. Pathogenic microorganisms such as Escherichia c. O157,

Salmonella, Listeria, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium and Giardia have all been

isolated from cattle, pig and sheep manures (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting,

2005). Of these, Salmonella is of particular concern with 323 reported isolations in

pigs in the UK in 1998 and 37% of all isolates typing as multi-drug resistant S.

typhimurium DT104. One study of fecal swabs taken from animals at an abattoir in

North Yorkshire found that 13% of beef cattle, 16% of dairy cattle, 2% of sheep and <

1% of pigs produced faeces containing E. coli O157 (Chapman et al., 1997). A more

recent study found E. coli O157 in 22 % of sheep and 16% of pig excreta samples that

indicate that the prevalence among these species might be increasing (Hutchison et

al., 2004). The most commonly pathogens found in poultry manure are Salmonella,

and Campylobacter. Listeria might be present but it has not been regarded as a

widespread problem. E coli have not been reported to date in UK poultry manures

(ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Pathogens found in manure are



Table 3.10 Pathogens found in animal manure (Nicholson et al., 2000)

Pathogens Cattle Pigs Sheep Poultry

E. coli O157 x x x -

Salmonella x x x x

Listeria x x NR x

Campylobacter x x x x

Cryptosporium x x x -

Giardia x x NR -

NR – not reported

Factors such as the age, diet and management of animals, as well as regional and

seasonal influences affect the number of microorganisms in manures. These

pathogens may also be present in dirty water, yard runoff and leachate from stored

manures (Hickman et al., 2009).

3.3.4. Legislation

Legislation and voluntary initiatives for the safe use of livestock manures on land and

what is covered within the legislation is summarized in Table 3.11.


Table 3.11 Legislation/ voluntary initiatives on the use of livestock Title Measures P/L/V PTEs OCs Pathogens

Control of Pollution (Silage,

Slurry and Agricultural Fuel

Oil) Regulations (1991)

Regulations for the prevention of pollution from

silage effluent, slurry, dirty water and fuel oil L I I I

Commission Regulation

(EC)

1334/2003

Reduced limits on Zn and Cu in feeding stuffs L D

The Feeding Stuffs

Regulations (2000)

Sets limits on trace elements and contaminants in

animal feedstuffs L D

Action Programme for

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

(England and Wales)

Regulations 1998 (SI

1998/1202)

Limits the quantities and timing of manures that

can be applied in NVZs. Based on nitrogen content

but will also limit contaminant application rates

and minimise pathogen transfer to water.

L I I I

Bathing Water Directive Controls on pathogens in bathing waters. May

have implications for manure spreading L I

Shellfisheries Directive (EC

Directive 91/492)

Controls on pathogens in commercial shellfish

beds. May have implications for manure spreading L I

Food Safety (Fishery

Products

and Live Shellfish)

(Hygiene)

Regulations (SI 1998/994).

Implements the Shellfisheries Directive L I

UKROFS Standards Contains manure management notes for organic

farmers L I I I

Protecting our Water, Soil

and Air (2009)

A code of good agricultural practice for farmers,

growers and land managers V I I I

FSA Guidance Note (2009)

Managing Farm Manures for Food Safety :

Guidelines for Growers to Minimise the Risks of

Microbiological Contamination of Ready to Eat

Crops

V I I I



D - Direct, I - Indirect. Legislation has a direct effect if its purpose is to control/limit inputs of a contaminant to

soil. Indirect legislation may have implications for contaminant inputs to soil without this being its primary

purpose.

The current UK recommendations for trace elements in livestock diets were

established around 20 years ago (ARC, 1975, 1980, 1981, 1983) and may not reflect

the higher requirements of modern livestock breeds and veterinary practices. A

recent EU initiative has proposed a reduction in the levels of PTEs, especially copper

and zinc, in livestock diets to try to minimize their subsequent environmental impact

in land applied manures (CEC, 2000). In January 2004 a recent legislation came into

force (EC, 2003) to reduce the maximum permitted levels of zinc and copper

supplementation in livestock diets (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

Previous and current maximum permitted levels of zinc and copper in livestock feeds



Table 3.12 Previous (SI 2000/2481) and current (EC, 2003) maximum permitted

levels of zinc and copper in livestock feeds (mg/kg complete feed)

Livestock category Zinc Copper

Previous Current Previous Current

Pigs

Up to 16 weeks - - 175 -

Up to 12 weeks - - - 170

17 weeks – 6

months - - 100 25

Other pigs - - 35 25

All pigs 250 150 - -

Poultry

Layer 250 150 35 25

Broiler grower 250 150 35 25

Broiler finisher 250 150 35 25

Ruminants

Pre-rumination - 200 - 15

Dairy and beef cattle 250 150 35 35

Sheep 250 150 15 15


3.4. Biowaste

3.4.1. Introduction

Biowaste is defined as biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste

from households, restaurants, caterers and retail premises, and comparable waste

from food processing plants. It does not include forestry or agricultural residues,

manure, sewage sludge, or other biodegradable waste such as natural textiles, paper

or processed wood. It also excludes those by-products of food production that never

become waste (CEC, 2008).

The total annual arising of biowaste in the EU is estimated at 76.5-102 million tonnes

food and garden waste included in mixed municipal solid wastes, and up to 37

million tonnes from the food and drink industry. Biowaste is a putrescible, wet waste

with two major streams – green waste from parks and gardens; and kitchen waste.

The former includes usually 50-60% water and more wood (lignocelluloses); the

latter contains no wood but up to 80% water (CEC, 2008).

3.4.2. Current techniques for dealing with biowaste

� Separate collection schemes work well specially for green waste. The kitchen

waste are often collected and treated as part of the mixed Municipal Solid Waste

(MSW). Benefits of separate collection include the diversion of biodegradable waste

from landfills, enhancing the calorific value of the remaining MSW, and generating a

cleaner biowaste fraction, which allows the production of high quality compost and

facilitates gas production (CEC, 2008).

� Landfilling, although it is considered the worst option, is still the biggest

MSW disposal method in the EU. The main environmental threat from biowaste is

the production of methane in landfills, which accounted for 3% of total greenhouse

gas emissions in the EU in 1995 (CEC, 2008).

� Incineration – biowaste is usually incinerated as part of MSW and

incineration can be regarded as energy recovery or as disposal.

� Biological treatment includes composting and anaerobic digestion and is

classified as recycling when compost/digestate is used on land. If that use is not

envisaged, it is classified as pre-treatment before landfilling or incineration.

� Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) – MBT refers to the process for

treatment of mixed waste and municipal solid waste feedstocks. MBT includes

mechanical sorting and separation of waste into fractions of biodegradable and non-

biodegradable materials. The biodegradable fraction may be treated by different

biological stabilisation processes that may include composting or anaerobic

digestion. Another option is the use of the high calorific fraction of municipal solid

waste to solid recovered fuel. New techniques for solid fuel recovery are currently


under trial (i.e. plasma treatment, gasification and pyrolysis) but are not in use in the

UK or other European countries (EA, 2009).

� Mechanical heat treatment (MHT) - MHT is a process that is currently used

to treat clinical waste and is now being proposed to treat municipal solid waste. MHT

is a process that uses thermal treatment in conjunction with mechanical processing.

The aim of this treatment is to separate a mixed waste stream into a number of

components that are easier to separate for recycling and recovery (Enviros, 2007).

The autoclave process uses non-segregated household waste as the waste stream

that is enclosed into a horizontal cylindrical autoclave. Following autoclaving, the

waste is discharged and undergoes a mechanical separation. Depending on the

treatment, the biodegradable fraction of municipal solid waste including paper, card,

food leftovers, and other materials (e.g. nappies) are turned into a fibre like material

that is currently being studied for its reuse (Papadimitriou et al., 2008). The

biodegradable fraction may be treated by different biological stabilisation processes

that may include composting or anaerobic digestion.

3.4.3. Treatment - Composting

3.4.3.1. Introduction

Compost is derived from biowastes that have been treated by composting. Within

this section, input waste streams considered were: green wastes (i.e. garden and

park waste), green/food waste (organic household waste), mixed waste and

municipal solid waste (MSW), and mushroom waste.

Composting is an aerobic stabilisation process that has the potential to biodegrade

relatively persistent organic compounds. In 2007/08, 5 million tonnes of source

segregated waste was composted in the UK (WRAP, 2009).

Composted materials mostly comprise composts derived from green wastes and a

limited amount of domestic solid waste compost. The survey of UK composting

shows that in 2003/4, of the 1.97 million tonnes of wastes composted, 73% was

household waste, 4% municipal non-household waste and 23% commercial wastes

(Slater et al., 2005). Compost products were distributed to several markets and

outlets, with agriculture the largest and the fastest growing outlet. Approximately

40% of all composted products were used in agriculture during 2003/4 (Slater et al.,

2005).

Amlinger et al. (2004b) reported an extensive review on PTEs and organic

compounds from composted wastes used as fertilisers. In this review, the following

compost types were identified as defined by characteristics of source materials:

� Green compost from garden and park waste materials (grass clippings,

bush and tree cuttings, leaves, flowers, etc).

� Green/food compost (Amlinger et al.(2004b) report this compost as

biowaste compost); and


� Mixed municipal solid waste derived compost (MSWC) and the stabilised

organic waste fraction from mechanical biological treatment plants

(MBTC).

In this section composts were derived from:

1. Source- separated collection schemes that include:

� green compost (GC); and

� green/food compost (G/FC).

2. Non-segregated waste that include:

� mixed municipal solid waste compost (MSWC);

� MBT compost-like output (CLO) - in the 1970s and 1980s, significant

development took place across the EU, targeted at treating unsorted municipal solid

waste (MSW) by a system of mechanical and biological treatment. However, the

quality of the compost-like output (CLO) from these plants was relatively poor

compared to source-segregated composts (Partl and Cornander, 2006). Large

quantities of physical contaminants such as glass and plastics remained in the

compost along with significant quantities of metal particles, producing a compost-

like material with a limited market for use. Modern plants and newly developed

technologies for recycling non-segregated MSW have been built over the last 15

years. However, CLO have still very variable composition across different countries

(Zmora-Nahum et al. 2007), between individual plants within the same country or

region (Lasaridi et al. 2006) and seasonally (Amlinger et al. 2004b). This is not

surprising in relation to MBT compost-like output as few plants have identical

feedstock or plant technology (Tayibi et al. 2007). MBT CLO may be of potential

benefit for soil improvement because it contains plant nutrients and stabilized

organic matter (EA, 2009). However, a higher level of contamination contained in

MBT CLO (relative to other types of compost produced from separately collected

green waste) limits the end use for MBT outputs.

� MHT CLO - following mechanical heat treatment, the end fibre is still unstable

and might release odours if stored and therefore the fibre needs to be stabilized

through composting or anaerobic digestion. MHT CLO may be of potential benefit

for soil improvement since it contains plant nutrients and organic matter. However,

it can also contain a higher level of contamination since it is derived from non-source

segregated MSW.

3. Mushroom compost

The amount of Spent Mushroom Compost (SMC) produced by the mushroom

industry can be estimated from mushroom production data. Fresh mushroom

production of 453 kg per week generates between 160 and 170 m3 fresh SMC per

year (DETR, 2000). Mushroom production in the UK fell by about 32% between 1999

and 2003, thus the production of SMC also fell. No specific data is available on the

amounts of SMC used in agriculture so it has been assumed that spreading SMC to


agricultural land accounts for the SMC that was not used in the other 3 outlets

(gardeners, local authorities and the landscape industry; Table 3.13). By this

calculation, the amount of SMC used in agriculture was estimated as about 50% of

SMC annually. The estimated annual production of SMC is in the range 400,000 to

600,000 t and thus represents a significant quantity compared to other industrial and

biowastes applied to land.

Table 3.13 Production of mushrooms and spent mushroom compost in 1999 and

2003 (DETR, 2000; Defra, 2005b)

1999 2003

Mushroom production (t y-1) 79 439 53 345

Compost production (m3 y-1) 556 073 – 595 792 387 415- 400 087

Adjusted compost make (m3 y-1)a 575 000 394 000

Outlets

Gardeners 77 500 53 104b

Local authorities 14 000 9 593b

Landscape industry 190 500 130 534b

Agricultural landc

293 000 200 769b

a – amount of compost generated annually rounded to average range

b- figures calculated from 1999 ratios

c- assumed from difference between total amount of compost generated and that is used in

other outlets

3.4.3.2. Contaminants in compost

PTEs

1. Source-segregated compost

Concentrations of PTEs in composts derived from source-segregated green/food

waste and green waste are presented in Tables 3.14 and 3.15, respectively.


Table 3.14 Concentrations of PTEs in green/food compost

Country Statistics Number of samples Metal/element (mg/kg dry weight)

Reference Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn As

Austria

Median 552-582 0.38 24 47 0.16 19 37 174 NA aAmlinger and Peyr, 2001

Median

[mean] 28

0.74

[0.72]

31

[31.3]

70

[76]

0.20

[0.22]

23

[33.3]

67.5

[73.4]

236.5

[237] 5.7

aZehtner et al., 2001

Median

[mean] 46

0.67

[0.7]

32.47

[32.11]

53.8

[56.5]

0.16

[0.16]

21.82

[22.27]

39.21

[41.94]

205

[219]

6.88

[7.07]

aBala, 2002

Belgium Median 195 0.82 22 45 0.15 12 69 229 NA aDevliegher, 2002

Denmark Mean 4 0.48 11 60 0.11 9.3 41 150 3.4 aPetersen, 2001

Finland Mean 3-6 0.6 NA NA 0.09 9.67 30.00 NA 6.00 aVuorinnen, 2002

France

Mean 20-28 0.9 29 96 0.6 24 86 289 Hogg et al., 2002

Median

[mean] 12-27

0.86

[1.07]

30.20

[42.81]

89.00

[109.77]

0.50

[0.63]

20.20

[25.51]

92.95

[106.05]

241.70

[325.66]

9.20

[9.05] Charonnat et al., 2001

Germany

Median 6414-6446 0.53 25 49 0.18 16 57 196 NA aReinhold, 1998

Mean 17500 0.5 23 45 0.14 14 49 183 NA aZAS, 2002

Mean 19 plants 0.45 27.2 67.9 0.23 18.5 42.7 196 NA aMarb et al., 2001

Mean 193 0.6 32 40 0.2 20 60 178 NA aSihler and Tabasaran, 1996

Median 60 0.46 NA 42.5 0.13 NA 42.5 180 4.0 aStock et al., 2002

Ireland Mean 19 0.6 15.3 46 0.4 19 31.7 138.5 NA aNí Chualáin, 2004

Italy Median

[mean] 127

1.08

[1.38]

23.1

[33.1]

74.9

[89.1] NA

26.2

[26.3]

70.7

[84.4]

180

[219] NA

aCentemero, 2002

Luxembourg Mean 175 0.41 32.0 38.6 0.12 15.8 48.7 218.6 7.2 (n=88) aMathieu, 2002

Netherlands

Median NA 0.3 17 29 0.12 7 57 157 NA Hogg et al., 2002

Mean 4 0.47 16 27 0.13 10 78 204 3.8 aDriessen and Roos, 1996

Mean 811 0.52 20.82 36.41 0.14 10.79 63.42 189.48 3.76 aBrethouwer, 2002

Mean 172 0.4 14 30 0.13 8 56 159 5 aKoopmans, 1997

a – as cited in Amlinger et al., 2004b



Table 3.14 (cont.) Concentrations of PTEs in green/food compost

Country Statistics Number of samples Metal/element (mg/kg dry weight)


Norway

Median

[mean] 12

0.54

[0.66]

25.5

[24.3]

69

[78]

0.11

[0.22]

11.25

[11.11]

23.9

[44.56]

264

[331] NA

aLystad, 2002

Median

[mean] 9 plants

0.32

[0.36]

14

[15]

52

[53]

0.07

[0.11]

10

[10]

20

[24]

197

[210] NA Paulsrud et al., 1997

Spain

(Catalunya)

Med

[mean] 32-56

<1.5

[<1.1]

27

[32]

88

[95]

0.2

[0.3]

23

[31]

56

[64]

202

[214] NA

aGiró, 2002

Sweden Mean 5 plants 0.37 9.7 48 0.08 5.8 17 157 NA

aLundeberg, 1998

Mean 5 0.33 9.7 27 0.05 7.9 18 93.7 NA aLundeberg, 2002

Switzerland

Median

[mean] 88-137

0.36

[0.39]

22.78

[24.45]

47.00

[56.08]

0.12

[0.17]

15.10

[16.95]

44.50

[48.06]

162.0

[173.9] NA

aGolder, 1998

Mean NA 0.36 22.3 57.7 0.128 16.3 49.3 183.5 NA aCandinas et al., 1999

UK

Median 60 0.51 16 50 0.20 18 102 186 NA Hogg et al., 2002

Mean 6 0.55 20.3 84.3 0.16 25.4 79.9 185. NA aBywater, 1998

Mean 4-15 1.0 49 47 NA NA 87 290 NA aWalker, 1997

1Mean NA 0.6 19.8 46 0.2 17 96 182 NA

ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005 2Mean 99-102 0.62 21.4 54.5 0.20 15.6 99.7 186.1 NA WRAP, 2009


1- Data from 1995-2004 from WRAP (2004) and the Composting Association. Assumes a dry solids content of 65%.

2 - Only results from PAS 100 certified green composts


Table 3.15 Concentrations of PTEs in green compost

Country Statistics Number of

samples

Metal/element (mg/kg dry weight) Reference

Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn As

Austria

Median 33 0.47 26 35 0.12 22 34 164 NA aAmlinger, 2000

Median

[mean] 14

0.71

[0.69]

24

[31.9]

46

[104]

0.20

[0.25]

19.0

[25]

58.0

[81.3]

236.5

[302] NA

aZehtner et al., 2001

Belgium Median 229 0.70 17 32 0.12 9 44 169 NA aDevliegher, 2002

Denmark Mean 10 0.34 8.8 28 0.07 5.7 23 140 2.8 aPetersen, 2001

Finland Mean 5 0.3 NA NA 0.06 11.4 7.14 NA 1.82 aVuorinnen, 2002

France

Mean 336 1.4 46 51 0.5 22 87 186 NA Hogg et al., 2002

Median

[mean] 22-123

0.8

[1.37]

34.16

[45.60]

43.75

[50.78]

0.30

[0.52]

18.54

[22.41]

63.00

[87.33]

170.00

[186.45]

7.32

[8.94]

aCharonnat et al., 2001

Germany

Mean 5 plants 0.33 26.6 39.6 0.12 18.5 25.6 126 NA aMarb et al., 2001

Mean NA 0.70 27.04 32.67 0.27 17.53 60.8 167.82 NA aFricke and Vogtmann, 1993

Median 82-86 0.28 28.9 36.7 0.118 13.1 31.0 141 4.61 aBeuer et al., 1997

Median 12 0.71 NA 42.0 0.16 NA 56.0 205 5.4 aStock et al., 2002

Ireland Mean 4 0.9 31.7 67.3 0.1 38.5 91.8 257.5 NA aNí Chualáin, 2004

Italy Median

[mean] 70

0.95

[0.88]

33.4

[43.4]

62.7

[71.1] NA

23.1

[29.9]

71.7

[83.2]

165.8

[181.5]

[4.5]

(n=43)

aCentemero, 2002

Luxembourg Mean 57 0.34 23.7 32.4 0.13 12.8 44.5 164.1 6.1

(n=43)

aMathieu, 2002

Netherlands Median NA NA 19 28 0.1 9 49 134 NA Hogg et al., 2002

Mean 4 0.62 25 28 0.092 14 41 144 5.1 aDriessen and Roos, 1996

Sweden Mean 6 plants 0.48 13 41 0.06 7.3 25 168 NA aLundeberg, 1998

UK

Mean 29 0.67 20.9 51.1 0.17 18.7 118.2 198 NA aBywater, 1998

Mean 4-15 0.075 20 37 NA NA 87 214 NA aWalker, 1997

1Mean 22-24 0.8 23.5 54.5 0.35 12.6 115.5 188.9 NA WRAP, 2009


1 – Only results from PAS 100 certified green composts


Comparisons between metal levels in G/FC and GC showed that Cu, Pb, Zn and Hg

had lower concentrations in GC than in G/FC (Breuer et al., 1997 as cited in Amlinger

et al., 2004b). For Cd, Cr and Ni no difference was identified. Comparison between

G/FC and GC for several countries, Amlinger et al (2004b) concluded that:

� Concentration levels for PTEs in G/FC tend to increase more significantly

than levels for PTEs in GC, which might be partly due to less effective

source separation schemes in some cases.

� The difference is more significant in countries that are in the starting

phase of separate collection systems.

� Countries that are introducing separate collection systems for green and

household waste (UK, France, Spain and Italy) generally show higher

concentrations of PTEs in composts when compared to countries with an

established source separation in place (The Netherlands, Denmark,

Austria).

� In G/FC the difference in metal concentrations decreases in

the sequence: Cu>Cd, Ni, Pb, Zn>Cr, Hg.

� In GC the difference in metal concentrations decreases in the

sequence: Pb, Cd, Cr>Cu>Hg, Ni, Zn. The effect for Pb might be

due to a higher level of attention paid to green waste coming

from roadsides and high traffic areas in most countries with

“mature” schemes.

In a recent study in the UK from WRAP (2009) there was almost no difference in

heavy metal content from GC and G/FC.

2. Non-source segregated composts

Concentrations for PTEs in mixed municipal solid waste compost, and in MBT CLO are

presented in Tables 3.16 and 3.17, respectively.

In Table 3.18, the average, minimum and maximum concentrations of metals

detected in the MHT CLO and the potential average metal content for compost or

digestate, assuming 50% dry matter reduction during biological treatment, are

presented.


Table 3.16 Concentrations of PTEs in municipal solid waste composts


samples


(as cited in Amlinger et

al., 2004b) Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn As

Austria Mean 32 5.0 98 333 - 80 728 1,450 NA Lechner, 1989

Mean 25 3.3 85 455 2.5 71 461 1,187 NA Amlinger et al., 1990

France Median

[mean] 9-56

1.66

[4.62]

109.82

[126.34]

153.00

[164.37]

1.50

[1.64]

44.35

[60.35]

313.75

[325.92]

559.50

[554.28] [12.69] Charonnat et al., 2001

Germany Mean 128 3.0 164 330 2.3 87.6 588 915 NA Ulken, 1987

mean NA 5.5 71 274 2.4 45 513 1,570 NA LAGA, 1985

Ireland Mean 6 2.5 106 454 0.4 102 274 775 NA Ní Chualáin, 2004

Italy Median

[mean] 14

2.90

[2.80]

72.7

[78.9]

114.0

[177.8] NA

35.8

[41.8]

385.0

[365.7]

703

[1,025] NA Centemero, 2002

Spain

(Catalunya)

Mean 49-68 1.66 198 400 1.5 61 326 820 NA Canet et al., 2000

Means of 2 plants NA 1 66/71 144/336 NA 73/104 185/213 283/533 NA Giró Fontanals, 1998

Median

[mean] 3-207

3

[4.1]

80

[109]

217

[431]

1

[1]

65

[71]

428

[636]

454

[647] NA Giró, 2002

UK Mean 18 (1 plant) 0.265 9.74 58.15 0.105 21.28 121.0 199.2 NA Anderson, 2002

mean 4-15 5.5 71 274 NA NA 513 1,510 NA Walker, 1997


Table 3.17 Concentrations of PTEs in mechanical biological treatment compost-like outputs


samples


(as cited in Amlinger

et al., 2004b) Cd Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn As

Austria Range

9 0.7-6.1 24-344 161-500 0.1-4.1 18-253 64-963 235-990 NA

Amlinger et al., 2000 Median 2.7 209 247 1.3 149 224 769 NA

France mean 100 4.5 122 162 1.6 60 319 542 NA Hogg et al., 2002

UK Range

16 (1 plant) 0.22-1.87 3.7-50.6 25.3-306 0.001-0.93 9.6-93.9 73.4-683 130-560 NA

Anderson, 2002 Median 0.41 15.8 91.1 0.15 31.0 166.8 286 NA

Table 3.18 Concentrations of PTEs in mechanical heat treatment compost-like outputs (CalRecovery, 2007)

Metals Fibre metal content

Mean [min; max] *Potential average content for fibre compost or digestate

Cd 1.8 [0.4 ; 6.5] 3.6

Cr 85.4 [20; 265] 170.8

Cu 68.2 [34; 82] 136.4

Pb 99.9 [38; 330] 199.8

Hg <0.06 [<0.01; 0.14] <0.12

Ni 21.1 [10; 58] 42.2

Zn 389.6 [150; 720] 779.2

* assuming a 50% dry matter reduction during biological treatment


A study carried out for DG Environment in 2004 showed that the levels of metals

from material derived from MBT plants (MBT CLO) can be two to 10 times greater

than those present in compost derived from source-separated green waste

(Amlinger et al. 2004b). Older and more recent data on concentrations of PTEs in

MSWC and stabilized material from mechanical biological treatment, modern pre-

treatment techniques and general source segregation for paper, glass, metals and

hazardous waste are still no guarantee of a significant reduction of heavy metal

levels (Amlinger et al. 2004b).

In Table 3.19 the potential average metal content of the MHT CLO was compared to

mean metal contents from compost derived from non-segregated municipal solid

waste following mechanical and biological treatment (Amlinger et al., 2004b). With

the exception of Hg that is detected in the fibre at much lower concentrations, all

other metal concentrations are within the range of metal content in compost

derived from municipal solid waste. Cd and Cr in the potential fibre-based compost

are found to be at the upper range levels, whereas Cu, Pb, Ni are closer to the lower

range concentrations. Zn content is in the middle of the range and Hg is below the

lower range. Therefore, treatment of municipal solid waste by autoclaving seems to

have greater potential than the use of mechanical and biological treatment for the

production of quality material (CalRecovery, 2007).

Table 3.19 Average metal content in potential MHT CLO and non-segregated

municipal solid waste compost.

Compost Average metal content (mg/kg dm)

Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg Ni Zn

Potential metal content in

MHT CLO 3.6 170.8 136.4 199.8 <0.12 42.2 779.2

MSW compost

(Amlinger et al., 2004b) 1.7-5.0 70-209 114-522 181-720 1.3-2.4 30-149 283-1570

Mixtures of feedstock materials for composting

Different feedstocks might also be mixed to derive composts. Concentrations of

potential toxic elements in compost mixtures are presented in Table 3.20.

Further potentially toxic elements

Concentrations in composts of other potentially toxic elements are presented in

Table 3.21.


Table 3.20 Heavy metal concentrations in compost of mixtures

Country Statistics Mixture n Metal/element (mg/kg dry weight)


Belgium Median *Humotex 9 0.6 25 36 0.1 12 63 199 NA aDevliegher, 2002

France Median

[mean] Compost of mixtures 12-14

1.00

[1.02]

34.35

[48.44]

106.00

[114.10]

0.70

[0.64]

24.21

[28.73]

52.63

[54.08]

316.85

[361.06] NA Charonnat et al., 2001

Germany mean Mowed material from roadside 46 0.9 70 65 0.3 47 142 215 NA aSihler and Tabasaran, 1993

Ireland mean Composted fish waste 5 1.0 43 33.3 0.1 8.7 8.9 67.3 NA aNí Chualáin, 2004

Italy

Median

[mean] Butchery-waste+greenwaste 16

0.92

[0.94]

12.7

[13.4]

44.0

[47.8] NA

12.7

[16.6]

11.2

[13.9]

284

[296] NA

aCentemero, 2002

Median

[mean]

Growing media for gardening

uses (with compost) 61

0.86

[1.08]

33.6

[33.7]

63.8

[60.8] NA

25.2

[27.1]

27.8

[47.5]

20.

[241] NA

aCentemero, 2002

Netherlands

Mean Waste of bulbs 4 0.24 9.5 9.5 0.17 7.0 21 53 2.3 aDriessen and Roos, 1996

Mean Mowed material from roadside 4 0.38 18 22 0.12 9.9 49 122 3.7 aDriessen and Roos, 1996

Mean Horticultural waste 4 0.6 20 41 0.24 13 68 266 2.1 aDriessen and Roos, 1996

Mean

Mixture of horse manure, straw,

peat, plaster. It’s the final product

(substract) of mushrooms

4 0.35 12 44 0.044 9.6 19 174 0.9 aDriessen and Roos, 1996

Mean Topsoil of heather (sod) natural

area in the Netherlands 4 0.43 4.7 8.4 0.072 7.0 42 27 2.4

aDriessen and Roos, 1996

UK

Mean MXD-composted source

segregated material of mixed or

undetermined origin

14 0.67 42.4 76.9 0.25 16.4 103.9 267 NA aBywater, 1998

Mean Composted commercial single-

substrate matter 3 0.37 5.5 31.6 17.8 0.05 5.3 117 NA

aBywater, 1998

a – as cited in Amlinger et al., 2004b *Humotex is the product made from anaerobic digestion and consequent aerobic stabilisation of biowaste


Table 3.21 Concentrations of further potential toxic elements in compost

Country Statistics Compost

type n


Al As B Be Co Fe Mn Mo Na Sb Se Sn Tl V

Austria

Median

[mean] NA 15-42

11,541

[11,880]

5.7

[6.4]

8.2

[9.5]

0.5

[0.5]

7.2

[9.3] NA

643

[830]

2.2

[2.7] NA

1.2

[1.8] NA

<5

[<5]

<2.5

[<2.5]

26

[29]

aZethner et

al., 2000

Median

[mean] NA 65

11,794

[11,914]

6.88

[7.07] NA NA

6.55

[7.26]

14,418

[15,299] NA

1.97

[1.89] NA NA NA NA NA

25.5

[26.8]

aBala, 2002

Germany

Median

[mean]

OHWC

3-196

6,083

[6,485]

3.41

[3.65]

20.5

[21.5] NA

5.29

[5.49]

9,612

[9,811]

401

[400] NA

2958

[3008] NA

0.17

[0.17] NA

0.072

[0.074] NA

aBreuer et

al., 1997

Median

[mean] GC 4-86

6,194

[6,239]

4.61

[4.74]

18.5

[20.5] NA

6.4

[6.4]

11,358

[11.991]

487

[495] NA

285

[319] NA

0.14

[0.15] NA

0.099

[0.092] NA

aBreuer et

al., 1997

France

Median

[mean] OHWC 9-14 NA

9.2

[9.05] NA NA NA

11,640

[10,350] [430] [1.81] NA NA

0.5

[0.78] NA NA NA

Charonnat

et al., 2001

Median

[mean] GC 15-58 NA

7.32

[8.94] NA NA NA

6,600

[8,140]

262

[293]

1.6

[3.15] NA NA

0.36

[1.14] NA NA NA

Charonnat

et al., 2001

Italy

Range of

means

OHWC

including

agro-

industrial

sludges

10

plants NA

2.17-

14.25 NA

0.13-

0.50 NA NA NA NA NA NA

0.80-

4.50

0.70-

50.00

0.50-

1.50

18.20-

96.00

aBecaloni et

al., (o.J)

Range of

means

GC 3

plants NA 7.60-

12.51 NA 0.21-

0.31 NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.8-

1.60

1.03-

6.00

0.88-

1.50

21.13-

66.50

aBecaloni et

al., (o.J)




General

Limits for organic contaminants in compost do not exist. This situation is especially

relevant for compost-like outputs, where recent evidence suggests that too little

effort has been invested in assessing risks from organic compounds, such as

pharmaceuticals, fragrances, surfactants, and ingredients in household cleaning

products, likely to be found in waste streams destined for land (Eriksson et al. 2008).

Fungicides, disinfectants and insecticides are used in mushroom production.

Therefore, the use of spent mushroom compost in agriculture, gardening and

landscaping means that any pesticide residues will be added to soils.

Pesticides of concern that have been frequently detected in composts include:

carbaryl, atrazine, chlordane, 2.4-D, dieldrin, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, and

others (Swedish EPA, 1997). Degradation-resistant herbicides have been identified as

a source of plant phytotoxicity of composts, even at very low concentrations and this

raises the possibility that all composts may be required to pass a bioassay to assure

absence of potential to harm plants (Hogg et al., 2002). Certain herbicides, such as

chlorpyralid and picloram, are very persistent to degradation and research suggests

that they may decompose slower in compost than in natural soils (Hogg et al., 2002).

Concentrations

In the review from Amlinger et al. (2004b), selection criteria for the evaluation of

organic contaminants were set based on their potential occurrence in compost, the

availability of published data, and knowledge of physicochemical properties and

feasibility of chemical analysis. The compounds considered were:

� PCBs;

� PPCDD/Fs;

� PAHs;

� Chlorinated pesticides and adsorbable organic halogen (AOX) (aldrin,

biphenyl, o-phenylphenol chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, DDT

[1,1,1-trichlor-2,2-bis(p-chlorphenyl)ethan], lindane, HCH-isomers

[hexachlorcyclohexan], hexachloro-benzene, hexachlorobenzol, hepta-

chlor, pentachlorophenol, pyrethroids, thiabendazole);

� LAS;

� NPE;

� Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP);

� Butylbenzyl phthalate (BBP);

� Dibutyl phthalate (DBP).

Concentrations of PCBs, PAHs and PCDD/Fs in composts are presented in Tables

3.22, 3.23 and 3.24, respectively.


Table 3.22 Concentrations of PAHs in composts in μg/kg dry weight (unless otherwise stated)

Reference Country PAHs Statistics Compost type

G/FC GC MSWC

aKrauss, 1994 Germany

∑ 15 US EPA PAHs

(without acenaphtylene) Mean 2175 (n=-26) 2655 (n=4) NA

Berset and Holzer, 1995 Switzerland ∑ 16 US EPA PAHs Mean 2698 (n=2) 2492 (n=1) NA aHund et al., 1999 Germany ∑ 16 US EPA PAHs Mean 2786 (n=7) 3309 (n=1) NA

aZethner et al., 2000 Austria

∑ 15 US EPA PAHs

(without naphthalene) Mean 965 (n=29) 774 (n=13) NA

Vergé-Leviel, 2001 France ∑ 15 US EPA PAHs

(without acenaphtylene) Mean 3200 (n=3) 1670 (n=1) NA

Houot et al., 2002 France ∑ 16 US EPA PAHs Mean 2779 (n=1) NA NA aKuhn and Arnet, 2003 Switzerland ∑ 16 US EPA PAHs Mean 4119 (n=4) NA NA

bKumer, 1992 NA ∑ 16 PAHs Mean 0.8-1.04 mg kg

-1 dm NA 4.41 mg kg

-1 dm

bFricke and Vogtmann, 1993 NA ∑ 6 PAHs Mean 1707 1560 NA

bSchwardorf et al., 1996 NA NA Median 3.9 mg kg

-1 dm 3.8 mg kg

-1 dm NA

bBreuer et al., 1997 NA ∑ 16 PAHs Median 3584 3586 NA

bAmlinger, 1997 (sp323) NA NA Mean 1.2 mg kg

-1 dm (n=6) 1.7 mg kg

-1 dm (n=3) NA

bZethner et al., 2001 Austria NA Median 962 (n=42 plants) NA

bMarb et al., 2001 Germany ∑ 16 PAHs Mean 4573 (n=15) 2674 (n=5) NA

bStock and Friedrich, 2001 NA NA Median 1.9 mg kg

-1 dm (n=30) NA

bStock et al., 2002 NA ∑ 16 US EPA PAHs Median 2.35 mg kg

-1 dm (n=60) 2.16 mg kg

-1 dm (n=12) NA

Houot et al., 2003 NA NA Range 1.4-11.19 mg kg

-1 dm

(n=4)

1.51-1.68 mg kg-1

dm

(n=2)

1.47-4.99 mg kg-1

dm

(n=5)

a – as cited in Brändli et al., 2005

b- as cited in Amlinger et al., 2004b


Table 3.23 Concentrations of PCBs in composts in μg/kg dry weight (unless otherwise stated)

Reference Country PCBs Statistics Compost type

G/FC GC MSWC

Brändli et al., 2007a Switzerland ∑ 7 PCBs Median NA 26 (31 plants) NA

Berset and Holzer, 1995 Switzerland ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 69.8 (n=2) 30.6 (n=1) NA aAldag and Bischoff, 1995 Germany ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 52.5 (n=8) 61.0 (n=6) NA

aHund et al., 1999 Germany ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 41.8 (n=7) 41.7 (n=1) NA

Vergé-Leviel, 2001 France ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 85.0 (n=3) 59.0 (n=1) NA

aKumer, 1992 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Mean

0.44 mg kg-1

dm

(3 plants)

0.24 mg kg-1

dm

(5 plants) 1.68 mg kg

-1 dm

bKrauβ et al., 1992 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Range of means

0.150-0.860 mg kg-1

dm

(6 plants)

0.030-0.480 mg kg-1

dm

(9 plants)

0.730-1.680 mg kg-1

dm

(4 plants) bKrauβ et al., 1992 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 104 45 NA

bFricke et al., 1991 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Median 0.23 mg kg

-1 dm 0.15 mg kg

-1 dm NA

bFricke and Vogtmann, 1993 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 0.26 mg kg

-1 dm 178 1,493

bSchwardorf et al, 1996 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Median 0.08 mg kg

-1 dm 0.07 mg kg

-1 dm NA

bBreuer et al., 1997 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Median 56 51 NA

bAmlinger (1997[sp277] NA ∑ 6 PCBs Mean

0.03 mg kg-1

dm

(n=6)

0.03 mg kg-1

dm

(n=3) NA

bZethner et al., 2000 Austria ∑ 6 PCBs Median 11.6 (n=29) 7.2 (n=13) NA

bMarb et al., 2001 Germany ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 43.0 (n=15) 29.0 (n=5) NA

bStock and Friedrich, 2001 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Median 25 (n=30) NA NA

bStock et al., 2002 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 9.79 (n=60) 11.08 (n=2) NA

Houot et al., 2003 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Range 34-104 (n=4) 19-66 (n=2) 41-293

(n=5) aTimmermann et al., 2003 NA ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 51 (n=30) NA NA

bKrauss, 1994 Germany ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 32.4 (n=33) 28.0 (n=20) NA

bBayerisches Landesamt fur

Umweltschultz, 1995 Germany ∑ 6 PCBs Mean 32.4 (n=33) 75.9 (n=27) NA




Table 3.24 Concentrations of PCDD/Fs in composts in ng [I-TEQ]/kg dry weight (unless otherwise stated)

Reference Country PCDD/Fs Statistics Compost type

G/FC GC MSWC aKummer, 1990 Germany ∑ 17 PCDD/Fs Mean 10.6 (n=8) 12.5 (n=9) NA

aHarrad et al., 2001 USA ∑ tetra- to octa-PCDD/Fs Mean NA 21423 ng/kg dw (n=13) NA

aMalloy et al., 1993 USA ∑ tetra- to octa-PCDD/Fs Mean NA 21427 ng/kg dw (n=7) NA

aKrauss, 1994 Germany ∑ 17 PCDD/Fs Mean 9.9 (n=-33) 5.2 (n=20) NA

aAldag and Bischoff, 1995 Germany ∑ 17 PCDD/Fs Mean 5.5 (n=8) 12.0 (n=5) NA

bBayerisches Landesamt fur

Umweltschultz, 1995 Germany ∑ 17 PCDD/Fs Mean 11.4 (n=28) 11.4 (n=8) NA

aKummer, 1996 Germany ∑ 17 PCDD/Fs Mean 14.8 (n=1) 11.0 (n=1) NA

aZethner et al., 2000 Austria ∑ 17 PCDD/Fs Mean 6.9 (n=29) 5.1 (n=13) NA

bMarb et al., 2001 Germany ∑ 17 PCDD/Fs Mean 10.7 (n=15) 9.3 (n=5) NA

bWeiss, 2002 Germany ∑ 17 PCDD/Fs Mean

9.6 or 894 ng/kg dw

(n=3)

13.2 or 894 ng/kg dw

(n=2) NA




PCBs have been banned from industrial processes and therefore their occurrence in

the environment is decreasing. Generally, PCBs were detected in higher

concentrations in composts from urban areas. Some, but not all, studies showed

higher concentrations in G/FC than in GC. PCB content in compost from MSW was

around 50 to 100-fold higher than that found in compost from source separated

G/FC and GC. Input of PCBs to soil from compost was less than from atmospheric

deposition rates (Amlinger et al., 2004b).

Concentrations of PCDD/Fs in composts are dependent on the background

concentrations in the soil (when soil is added to speed the composting process) and

the source material following diffuse emissions in the catchment area of the

composting plant. No clear difference could be observed between rural and urban

areas. Several studies showed lower amounts of PCDD/Fs in GC than in G/FC (Krauss,

(1994), Kummer (1996) and Zehtner et al. (2000) as cited in Amlinger et al., 2004b).

PCDD/Fs content in composts from mixed municipal solid waste was generally 50 to

100 times higher than in compost from source-segregated bio and green waste. In

general, PCDD/Fs tend to concentrate during degradation because of mass loss

during mineralization of organic matter. Therefore, lower concentrations of PCDD/Fs

were observed in biowaste feedstocks than in the finished composts.

Higher concentrations of PAHs are assumed to be found in urban areas. Only a slight

trend indicated that concentrations of PAHs in G/FC were higher than in green

compost and PAH content in composts from mixed municipal solid waste were

generally 1 to 10 times higher than in compost from source-segregated biowaste.

Overall, the review from Amlinger et al. (2004b) concluded that concentrations of

PCBs, PCDD/Fs and PAHs in biowaste compost were similar to soils background

concentrations. Therefore, it was concluded that threshold limits for these

compounds are not required for the safe use of compost derived from source

segregated organic waste materials. This was not the case for mixed waste compost,

where higher concentrations of these organic compounds have been reported.

Amlinger et al. (2004b) recommended the monitoring of these compounds when

mixed waste compost is used for land application, and that the use of this compost

should be limited to non-food areas such as land reclamation of Brownfield sites,

surface restoration on landfill sites, or on noise protecting structures besides roads

and railways. Maximum concentrations of PCDD/Fs in compost from mixed waste

collection systems samples were still below the permitted levels for these

compounds in sewage sludge.

In the provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia, Canada, concentrations of

dioxins/furans, dioxin-like PCBs and PAHs were measured in 14 composts

(Groeneveld and Hébert, 2005). Dioxins and furans had low concentrations, with an

average of 9.7 ng I-TEQ kg-1

DS, and a range of 1.0 to 31 ng I-TEQ kg-1

. Dioxins/furans

in all the compost samples tested were between 10 and 300 times lower than the

risk based limit of 300 ng TEQ DFP (TEQDFP-WHO98, sum of dioxins (D), furans (F)

and dioxin-like compounds (P) originally proposed by US EPA). On average, dioxin-

like PCBs represented less than 20% of the TEQ DFP total. PAH content was generally


low, with 96% of all analyses with concentrations below the limits of detection or

quantification. Groeneveld and Hébert (2005) concluded that there was no

justification to include dioxins/furans, PCBs or PAHs as parameters in compost

quality criteria.

Brändli et al. (2005) reviewed available data on persistent organic pollutants (POPs)

in composts and main feedstocks from more than 60 reports. Median concentrations

of the sum of 16 PAHs, the sum of 6 PCBs and the sum of 17 PCDD/Fs were higher in

green waste than in organic household and kitchen waste. In foliage, persistent

organic pollutants concentrations were up to 12 times higher than in other feedstock

materials. In contrast, compost from organic household waste and green waste

contained similar amounts of PAHs, PCBs and PCDD/Fs. During composting,

concentrations of three ring PAHs decreased, whereas five- to six-ring PAHs and PCBs

increased due to mass reduction during composting. PCDD/Fs accumulated by up to

a factor of 14. As expected, urban feedstock and compost had higher concentrations

of POPs than rural material. Highest concentrations of POPs were usually observed in

summer samples, in accordance to what have been generally observed for PCBs, but

not for PAHs and PCDD/Fs. Median concentrations of POPs in compost were greater

than for arable soils but were within the range of many urban soils.

Overall, of the seven types of feedstocks investigated, foliage contained the highest

concentrations of PAHs, PCBs and PCDD/Fs. Bark, shrub, clippings and grass showed

the lowest concentrations of POPs, followed by organic household waste and green

waste. The higher concentrations observed in foliage and green waste might be

explained by the efficient filter characteristics of these materials. Similar

concentrations of POPs were observed for green/food waste and green waste

composts; this can be attributed to the fact that food waste is often blended with

green waste for aerobic composting. PAHs concentrations in feedstocks and compost

were similar, whereas for PCBs concentrations in compost were at the higher end of

feedstock concentrations, suggesting that degradation/volatilization of the lower

molecular weight PAH congeners occurs, whereas it was not apparent for the heavier

molecular weight PAHs, PCBs or PCDD/Fs. The increase of PCDD/Fs concentrations in

compost when compared to feedstock materials was larger than could be accounted

for by the mass balance and loss of volatile solids during composting, suggesting that

for the main POP classes investigated, atmospheric deposition may be a relevant

input source for these compounds.

The majority of chlorinated pesticides are banned in the EU. A considerable number

have been analysed in compost but they are rarely detected and only in very small

amounts (Amlinger et al., 2004b; Brändli et al., 2005). In general, G/FC have larger

concentrations of these compounds than green compost. Organochlorine pesticides,

pyrethroids and thiabendazole were close to the detection limits and below

permitted values for fertilizer regulations (Amlinger et al., 2004b). The AOX and

chlorinated pesticide groups comprise a wide range of compounds with different

properties and thus behaviour during composting. Composting generally decreases

concentrations for most of these compounds. The exception is for compounds used


for wood preservation that given their high persistence and toxicity, should be

excluded from the production of compost products or any recycling to land.

Biphenyl, which is a fungicide widely used in citrus production, was detected in all

composts and Brändli et al. (2005) suggested that the main route of entry is via

organic household wastes. Other citrus fungicides such as o-phenylphenol and

thiabendazole were also detected in compost, whereas pesticides such as cyfluthrin,

deltamethrin and fenpropathrin were rarely measured and reported.

LAS, NPE, DEHP, and PBDE are rapidly degraded under aerobic conditions during

composting. Very low concentrations have been reported in the literature reviewed

by Amlinger et al. (2004b). Therefore, there is no evidence for a need for limit values.

Median concentration of DEHP in compost was 300 μg/kg dry weight (Brändli et al.,

2005). DEHP content in compost containing green/food waste was higher than in GC,

which indicated a potentially larger plastic content in organic household waste.

Polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) are used as flame retardants and are

detected at increasing concentrations in the environment and were detected in

compost at 12.2 μg/kg dry weight (Brändli et al., 2005).

Mushroom compost

In mushroom production, fungicides, disinfectants and insecticides are used (ADAS,

Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Spent mushroom compost may be applied to

land and is marketed for horticultural use, which implies that any pesticide residues

will also be added to soils.

Pesticides are applied as sprays or drenches (43%) or in irrigation systems (47%) with

aerosol and wash-down methods accounting for 5% each. Insecticides and

disinfectants are used between crops and thus directly applied to the compost and

surrounding trays, boxes and ancillary equipment. Pesticides are used in all stages of

crop production. Mushrooms are present on the compost surface for only about two

weeks of the crop production cycle. On average, crops receive two treatments of

disinfectant, one of insecticide and one of fungicide during each crop cycle (CSL,

2004). In the UK, the use of pesticides by the mushroom industry is shown in Table

3.25.


Table 3.25 Use of pesticides on mushrooms grown in Great Britain in 2003 (CSL,

2004)

Treated square metres Kg active substance used

Disinfectant

Formaldehyde 459 883 4 040

Sodium hypochlorite 3 080 175 893

All disinfectants 3 540 058 4 933

Fungicides

Carbendazim 353 647 426

Prochloraz 3 832 452 1 775

Pyrifenox 142,084 142

All fungicides 4 328 183 2 343

Insecticides

Bendiocarb 357 958 28

Diflubenzuron 338 653 298

Other insecticides 23 485 1

All insecticides 720 096 326

All registered pesticides1

8 667 543 7 603

Biological control agents

Steinernema feltiae 675 569 NA

Heterorhabditis megidas 5 695 NA

All biological agents 681 264 NA

All non-registered substances2 5 668 350 152 039


1- Registered pesticides refers to those active substances and formulations approved under the

Control of Pesticides Regulations (COPR) 1986 as amended and the Plant Protection Products

Regulations (PPPR) 2003

2- Non-registered substances do not infer non-approved use of pesticides but refers to the use of

chemicals and biological agents that do not come under COPR (1986) or PPPR (2003).

Mushroom production fell by about 30% since 1999 and over the same period the

amount of pesticide active ingredient decreased by 68%. This accounted for by a fall

in insecticides use of 82%, disinfectants by 74% and fungicides by 26%, due to the

withdrawal of the approval of several active ingredients (Chemical Regulation

Directorate), with no replacement alternative compound approved for these uses. In

both 1999 and 2003 surveys there was no record of the use of compost sterilants

(CSL, 2004) and the use of organophosphates and organochlorines is also absent

from the 2003 survey data.

In conclusion, SMC is likely to contain pesticides and residues of other chemicals but

the range of chemicals used seems to have decreased in recent years due to the

withdrawal of pesticides previously approved for use in mushroom production.


3.4.3.4. Pathogens in composts

The composting process involves the creation of high temperatures within a pile that

would usually be enough to kill most enteric pathogens if correctly managed (ADAS,


In May 2000, the Composting Association provided the industry with standards for

composts and these formed the Publicly Available Specification for Composted

Materials (PAS 100) published by the British Standards Institution (BSI, 2005). The

composts have to be tested for the human pathogen indicator species Salmonella

and E. coli. To comply with PAS100, which is a voluntary standard, Salmonella sp

must be absent in a 25 g sample and the E. coli content must be below 1000 cfu/g.

Compliance with the industry standards and specifications is voluntary (ADAS,


3.4.4. Treatment – Anaerobic digestion


Digestate is derived from biowastes that have been treated by anaerobic digestion.

Anaerobic digestion is a process that breaks down organic matter under anaerobic

conditions. This process can be used to treat a range of wastes including sewage

sludge, organic farm wastes, municipal solid wastes, green wastes and organic

industrial and commercial wastes. Before being digested, the feedstock needs pre-

treatment. The purpose of this treatment is to mix different feedstocks, add water,

or to remove undesirable materials such as plastics and glass to produce better

digestate quality and to allow a more efficient digestion.

The digestion process takes place in digesters, which have different characteristics

and properties and accordingly are more or less suitable for a specific feedstock. At

present there are more mesophilic (35˚C) than thermophilic digesters (55˚C).

The by-products of the anaerobic digestion process are biogas and digestate. Biogas

can be upgraded by removing carbon dioxide and the water vapour and then used in

a CHP (Combined Heat and Power) unit to produce electricity and heat. The

digestate is composed of whole digestate, separated liquor and separated fibre and

can be used as a fertilizer or further processed into compost to increase quality.

This type of biological treatment has become well established in some EU countries

but currently under-utilised in the UK (BSI, 2008).

Anaerobic digestion is used for the treatment of:

� Liquids with low dry matter (sugar processing waters)

� Liquids with a higher organic matter (slurry, sewage and food

processing sludge)

� Solid biodegradable materials (food waste, crops, solid manure)


3.4.4.2. Contaminants

PTEs

Heavy metal concentrations in anaerobic digested samples derived from food wastes

for the UK are summarised in Table 3.26.

Table 3.26 Concentrations of PTEs in digestate from the UK (ADAS, 2009)

Metal Concentration in mg/kg DM

Cd 1.5

Cr 15.3

Cu 60.6

Hg ND

Ni 11.0

Pb 80.3

Zn 291.4

As ND

Organic compounds

Very little is known on concentrations of organic compounds in digestates. Data was

not found for anaerobic digestates from the UK but was found for Swiss digestates

from kitchen or green waste (Kupper et al. 2006). These data are shown on Table

3.27.

Table 3.27 Concentrations of organic compounds in Swiss digestates in µg/kg dry

weight (dw) unless otherwise stated (Kupper et al., 2006)

Organic compound Mean Median n

∑ 15 PAHs 5925 4202 13

∑ 7 PCBs 32 31 13

aDL PCBs

4.1 ng WHO-TEQ/Kg

dw

3.7 ng WHO-TEQ/Kg

dw 5

PCDD/Fs 3.2 ng I-TEQ/Kg dw 2.7 ng I-TEQ/Kg dw 5

PBDE (pentaBDE) 2.7 1.9 5

PBDE (octaBDE) 0.3 0.3 5

PBDE (decaBDE) 13.8 10.0 5

Hexabromocyclododecane 187 174 5

Tetrabromobisphenol A 0.9 1.0 5

∑ perfluorinated sulfonates 3.9 2.3 5

∑ perfluorinated carboxilates 4.1 3.1 5

∑ fluorooctane sulphonamides

and -sulfonamidoethanols 0.3 0.3 5

bPesticides 114 78 5

Phthalates - DEHP 1140 1140 2

Phthalates - DBP ND ND 2

NP ND ND 2

WHO- World health Organization; I – international; TEQ- toxicity equivalents)

a- Dioxin Like PCBs

b- ∑ of 271 compounds (86 fungicides, 86 herbicides, 92 insecticides, 5 acaricides, 1 nematicide, 1

plant growth regulator)


Pathogens

Temperature is the most important factor when considering the reduction of

pathogens during anaerobic digestion (Sahlström, 2003). Experimental investigations

demonstrate that Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. are not damaged by

mesophilic temperatures, whereas rapid inactivation occurs by thermophilic

digestion (Smith et al., 2005). On the other hand, in another study, mesophilic

anaerobic digestion has been shown to reduce levels of pathogens in animal waste

(Kearney et al., 2008).

A draft has been prepared for a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) for whole

digestate, separated liquor and separated fibre derived from the anaerobic digestion

of source-segregated biodegradable materials (BSI, 2008). The purpose of this PAS is

to ensure that digested materials are made using suitable input materials and

effectively processed by anaerobic digestion. As for composted materials, digested

materials are proposed to be tested for the human pathogen indicator species

Salmonella spp and E. coli.

3.4.5. Legislation

Legislation for the application of compost or digestate to soils is similar since

currently there is not any legislation on how to deal with biowastes (Table 3.28).

However, in the UK there is a Publicly Available Specification (PAS) for both compost

(BSI, 2005) and digestate (BSI, 2008) to ensure the production of quality materials

from both these treatment processes. However, these PAS are voluntary.


Table 3.28 Legislation/ voluntary initiatives on the use of compost/digestate Title Measures P/L/V PTEs OCs Pathogens

Waste Strategy 2000

Defra to encourage the development of quality

standards for compost. WRAP to take measures to

increase composting.

P I I I

Landfill Directive

(EC/31/1999)

Sets targets to reduce biodegradable wastes going

to landfill (and hence increase amounts

composted and reused).

L I I I

Animal By-Products

(Amendment) Order (2001)

Requires treatment of food waste (in response to

foot and mouth outbreak). L I

Biological Treatment of

Biowaste, 2001 – 2nd

draft Not applied. ? D I

Specification for

Composted

Materials (PAS100 : 2005)

BSI Standards for composts including heavy

metals, Salmonella and E. coli. V D I D

Specification for

Anaerobically Digested

Materials (PAS 110 : 2008)

BSI Standards for digestate including heavy

metals, Salmonella and E. coli. V D I D

Decision of 28 August 2001

(2001/688/EC). Ecological

criteria for the award of

the Community eco-label

to soil improvers and

growing media

Products shall not contain bark that has been

treated with pesticides.



D - Direct, I - Indirect . Legislation has a direct effect if its purpose is to control/limit inputs of a

contaminant to soil. Indirect legislation may have implications for contaminant inputs to soil without

this being its primary purpose.

Limits

Limits for contaminants in composts are available from PAS 100:2005 and are

presented in Table 3.29. There are no limits for organic contaminants in composts.

In Annex III of the 2001 Biowaste Working Document (EC, 2001) specific limit values

for two grades of ‘compost’ were proposed (Class 1 and 2) and also for ‘stabilised

biowaste’ materials, a term used to cover MBT outputs and similar materials. The

two classes of compost/digestate from source-separated feedstock were considered

suitable for land application on land growing food crops. However, the stabilized

biowaste was considered unsuitable for use on pasture or food crops, but suitable

for landscape restoration, road construction, etc.


Table 3.29 Limits for contaminants for compost (class 1 and 2), digestate and

stabilised biowaste UK EC, 2001 (proposed)

Compost

PAS 100:2005

(Class 1)

Digestate

Normal/exceptional upper limit

PAS 110: 2008

(Proposed)

Class 2 Stabilised biowaste

PTEs /elements (mg/kg dry weight)

Cd 1.5 1.5/1.9 1.5 5

Cr 100 100/113 150 600

Cu 200 100/125 150 600

Hg 1.0 1.0/1.3 1 5

Ni 50 50/63 75 150

Pb 200 200/250 150 500

Zn 400 200/250 400 1500

Pathogens

Salmonella absent Absent in 25 g fresh matter NA NA

E. coli 1000 CFU/g fresh

mass 1000/ 1500CFU/g dry matter NA NA

Physical contaminants

Total glass, plastic and

other non-stone

fragments > 2 mm

0.5 (of which 0.25 is

plastic)

% mass/mass of air

dry sample

0.5/ 0.6 % mass/mass dry matter

of which none are “sharps” NA NA

Stones > 4 mm in

grades other than

“mulch”

8 % mass/mass of air

dry sample

No upper limit, declare as part of

typical or actual characteristics,

% m/m dry matter

NA NA

Weed seeds 0 2/3 viable weed seeds per

propagules per litre NA NA

CFU – colony forming units


3.5. Industrial waste materials

3.5.1. Introduction

Industrial waste is generated by factories and industrial plants. In England and

Wales, approximately 50 million tonnes of industrial waste are produced every year

and, of this, only 2.6% were used on land (FoE, 2003). According to the Waste

Management Licensing (England and Wales)(2005) agricultural land can be treated

with wastes from a range of industries when such “treatments result in benefit to

agriculture or ecological improvement”.

Industrial wastes included in the regulations and considered in this section are:



� Dredgings from any inland waters

� Blood and gut contents from abattoirs

� Textile waste

� Tannery and leather sludge



� Waste lime and lime sludge

� Waste gypsum

� Decarbonation sludge

� Drinking water treatment sludge

Natural compounds such as oils and fats may be present in high levels in dairy, wool

scouring, abattoir, meat processing, oil crushing and rendering wastes (Davis and

Rudd, 1999). Detrimental effects on plant growth have been observed with wastes

that have above 4% fat or oil content. Oils and fats are likely to coat soil particles,

thus producing a waterproof barrier, and plants are not able to extract the water

(ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Microbial breakdown of the oil or fat

can also result in temporary anaerobic conditions that may cause crop damage.

Therefore, the pre-treatment of these wastes is recommended to reduce the fat or

oil content to < 4% by separation and alternative disposal of this component of the

waste (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

Organic contaminants in materials spread onto land are not routinely monitored and

may raise concerns about the potential quality and impacts of these wastes.

Nevertheless, quantities applied onto land are small and according to Aitken et al.

(2002) they are not likely to represent a significant issue for may industrial wastes

applied onto land as they are not in direct contact with organic chemicals, such as in

a manufacturing process or from urban or industrial discharges (Table 3.30). Some

exceptions include residuals from processes where colouring, bleaching or

preservative agents and pesticides might be used (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005).


Table 3.30 Assessment of likely concentrations of organic contaminants in a range of

wastes (Aitken et al., 2002)

Waste Risk

Waste soil or compost L

Waste wood, bark and other plant matter L

Waste food, drink or materials used in their preparation L

Blood and gut contents from abattoirs L

Waste lime L

Lime sludge from cement manufacture or gas processing L

Waste gypsum L

Paper waste sludge, waste paper and de-inked paper pulp M

Dredgings from any inland waters L

Textile waste M

Septic tank sludge M

Sludge from biological treatment plants M

Waste hair and effluent treatment sludge from tanneries M

L = low � unlikely to be a problem

M = Moderate � a possible problem unless strict precautions are followed

H= high � likely to be a serious problem unless strict precautions are carried out

3.5.2. Legislation

There is no specific legislation on the landspreading of industrial wastes to land. In

the European Commission working document on the Biological Treatment of

Biowaste (EC, 2001) all the biowastes suitable for biological treatment and/or

spreading on the soil are listed in Appendix C. In the Waste Management Licensing

for England and Wales (2005) legislation a list of wastes that can be spread on land is

also available. Legislation for the use of industrial wastes on land are reported in

Table 3.31.


Table 3.31 Legislation/ voluntary initiatives on the use of industrial wastes on land Title Measures P/L/V PTEs OCs Pathogens

Waste Management Licensing

Regulations (2005)

Industrial wastes used in agriculture are exempt if

it is shown that they provide “agricultural benefit

and ecological improvement”

L D I I

Environmental Permitting

(England and Wales)

Regulations 2007

Exemption from an environmental permit for a

range of industrial wastes L I I I

EU Animal By-Products

Regulations (2002) Blood needs to be treated before land application L I

UK Animal By-Products

Regulations (2005) Implements the ABPR in the UK L I

Code of practice for

Landspreading Paper Mill

Sludge (1998)

“Properly Qualified Advice” should be sought for

assessment of the suitability of a landspreading

site and paper waste properties for landspreading

V D I I

Defra guidance: Application f

dredging to agricultural land

(2002). Particularly in relation

to the NVZ Action Programme

The N content of dredging must be taken into

account when spreading to agricultural land L I I I

Biological Treatment of

Biowaste, 2001 – 2nd

draft Not applied D I



D - Direct, I - Indirect . Legislation has a direct effect if its purpose is to control/limit inputs of a contaminant to

soil. Indirect legislation may have implications for contaminant inputs to soil without this being its primary

purpose.

3.5.3. Pulp and paper industry Sludge


In this section, the pulp and paper sludge category includes: paper waste sludge,

waste paper and de-inked paper pulp.

Paper mills have been spreading paper wastes on agricultural land for around 30

years. The quantity of paper waste materials spread on agricultural land in England

and Wales in 2003 was estimated to be 280 000 tonnes on a dry solids basis and

were applied to 10 500 hectares of agricultural land (Gibbs et al., 2005).

There are a number of benefits of the application of paper wastes to agricultural

land including liming value, nutrient supply and soil conditioning properties and

these were confirmed by experimental data (Gibbs et al., 2005). Application of

organic matter applied as paper waste improves soil characteristics such as porosity,

moisture retention, structural stability and bulk density, and soil biological activity

and microbial and faunal populations (Gibbs et al., 2005). Reported negative impacts

included heavy metal load, organic contamination and odour generation.

Nevertheless, levels of these contaminants were similar to those of other commonly

applied organic materials (Gibbs et al., 2005). Another reported disadvantage was

the high carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio that will deprive crops of nitrogen or immobilize

nitrogen in the soil matrix (Davis and Rudd, 1999). However, the addition of extra

inorganic fertilizer nitrogen has been reported to overcome this problem (Gibbs et


al., 2005). Generally, no extra nitrogen has been applied following spreading of

biologically treated paper wastes, while extra nitrogen has been applied when paper

wastes have been chemically/physically treated (Gibbs et al., 2005).

3.5.3.2. Treatment

Based on nutrient content and heavy metal concentrations, paper wastes produced

in England and Wales can be split into two categories: (i) paper wastes with a

biological element in the treatment processes and (ii) paper wastes with none or

small biological element in the treatment process. Paper waste from paper mills

result from two-treatment routes - primary and secondary treatment processes.

While the primary treatment is a physical treatment, the secondary treatment may

be chemical/physical or biological (Gibbs et al., 2005). The sludge produced may be

composted, or anaerobically digested. It may also be used for co-digestion with

other wastes.


PTEs

Concentrations

Regarding dry solids, total nutrient content and heavy metal loadings, there are clear

differences between secondary biologically treated paper waste and primary or

secondary chemically/physically treated paper wastes. Biologically treated paper

wastes have lower dry solids content, higher nutrient and heavy metal content than

chemically/physically treated wastes. Data on the concentration of PTEs found for

paper waste following the different treatments are presented in Table 3.32.

In general, heavy metal concentrations in paper wastes are below those found in

sewage sludge (Gendebien et al., 1999), and similar to those present in animal

manures (ADAS, 2002) or other organic waste materials (Gendebien et al., 2001).


Table 3.32 Concentrations of metals in paper sludge, de-inked paper pulp and waste paper (mg/kg dry solids; mean (min;max))

Metals

Gibbs et al., 2005 Davis and Rudd, 1999 WRc, 2009

1 Primary treated

paper sludge

2 Secondary

biologically treated

paper waste

3 Secondary

chemically/physically

treated paper sludge

Paper waste sludge, waste

paper and de-inked paper pulp

4 Paper waste sludge,

waste paper and de-

inked paper pulp

n

Cd <0.2 (<0.2; 0.9) 0.7 (0.4; 1.1) <0.2 (<0.2) 0.02 (<0.25; 0.5) 0.29 (0.03; 5.07) 289

Cr 4.9 (1.2; 23.9) 18.2 (8.0; 41.4) 6.8 (0.2; 15.6) 2.4 (<1.0; 16.1) 11.97 (1.32; 82.6) 289

Cu 38.7 (10.8; 82.4) 110.2 (92.7; 123.6) 57.5 (5.8; 294.0) 32.8 (2.0; 349.0) 75.3 (2.5; 487.0) 293

Hg <0.2 (<0.2) <0.2 (<0.2) <0.2 (<0.2) <0.01 (<0.01; 0.03) 0.09 (0.01; 2.5) 283

Ni 2.8 (<0.2; 16.9) 10.5 (2.5; 33.4) 3.3 (<0.2; 7.5) 1.3 (<1.0; 8.7) 11.5 (0.02; 292.3) 282

Pb 8.4 (2.1; 46.9) 29.1 (23.3; 36.4) 7.8 (<0.2; 38.9) 1.7 (<1.0; 14.8) 7.67 (0.005; 85.9) 289

Zn 51.4 (12.2; 186.2) 138.5 (95.6; 226.5) 115.3 (6.5; 437.2) 29.4 (1.3; 157.0) 60.6 (0.16; 310.0) 294

NA- not available;

n- number of samples;

1-assumes dry solids content of 42.6%;

2- assumes dry solids content of 27.5%;

3- assumes dry solids content of 39.8%;

4- These data is an average of the metal content in paper waste sludge, waste paper and de-inked pulp paper.


Organic compounds

Organic contaminants in this waste include surfactants used in flotation process

(Tandy et al., 2008), and fatty and resin acids and PAH’s (Beauchamp et al., 2002;

Rashid et al., 2006). Beauchamp et al. (2002) claimed that the sludge could contain

150 different organic compounds.

Concentrations

Average concentrations of organic contaminants in paper waste sludge have been

reported by Gendebien et al. (2001) for France, Benelux, England and Finland and

these data are summarized in Table 3.33.

Table 3.33 Organic contaminants concentrations in the pulp and paper industry

sludge (in mg/kg dry weight; Gendebien et al., 2001).

Contaminant Min Max Average

Fluoranthene 0.01 <0.1 <0.05

Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.005 0.04 <0.02

Benzo(a)pyrene <0.005 0.03 <0.02

Sum of 7 PCBs 0.002 <1 <0.5

Data has also been found for Canada. Webber (1996) reported that total

concentrations of dioxin and furans (PCDD/Fs) were low and that 2,3,7,8-

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxicity equivalents (TEQ) ranged from 1.3 to 13.6 ng/kg

dry solids. In combined primary and secondary sludges from a paper mill in Canada,

PCDD/Fs were below 12 ng TEQ/kg dry solids when treated with chlorine and below

3.5 ng TEQ/kg dry solids when no chlorine was used. A review on the organic

contaminants of paper mill sludges in Canada reported low concentrations for

phenolics, polychlorinated biphenyls, xylene, phthalate esters, chlorodioxin/furans

and volatile compounds (Bellamy et al., 1995). In another study, Trepanier et al.

(1998) reported levels below the limits for soils in de-inked paper sludges for

aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated byphenyls and polynuclear aromatic

hydrocarbons. Overall, concentrations of these organic contaminants in paper

sludges were low, within the acceptable Canadian limits, and would not pose any

constrain on the application of paper wastes in agriculture.

Levels of AOX in paper sludges were reported to reach or exceed 500 mg/kg dry

solids (Welker and Schmitt, 1997). However, these compounds are insoluble in water

and environmental impacts due to landspreading are likely to be insignificant (Gibbs

et al., 2005).

Pathogens

With regard to pathogens content in paper wastes, Davis and Rudd (1999) concluded

that they can be regarded as pathogen and parasite free and that no risks to human

health, animal, or plants would arise. However, data on the survey performed by


Gibbs et al. (2005) revealed the presence of E. coli levels that ranged from non

detectable to 20,000 colony-forming units per gram of dry solids in paper wastes

that had undergone secondary biological treatment (e.g. composting). During

biological treatment, re-growth of pathogens might be possible if the optimal

temperature has not been reached (above 55°C; Elving, 2009). It is however unlikely

pathogens would be present in primary or secondary chemically/physically treated

materials (Gibbs et al., 2005).

3.5.4. Waste wood, bark or other plant material


Waste wood, bark or other plant material might originate from timber yards

(sawdust and shavings), municipal parks and gardens, from any processing of

vegetable matter (e.g. sugar beet, vegetables, green waste), chipboard, fibreboard

and medium density fibreboard processing, pallets and reclaimed timber from

building sites and packing crates (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

In the UK, 10 million tonnes of waste wood are being produced each year, most of

which goes to landfill.

The high organic carbon content of waste wood, bark or other plant matter has long-

term benefits to agricultural land. Immediate benefits to discourage weed growth

and conserve soil moisture are obtained by applying chipped wood or bark as a

mulch (Davis and Rudd, 1999). Potential negative impacts are dependent on the

nature of the production process. Following application to land, wood products with

a high C/N ratio can temporarily remove plant-available nitrogen from the soil.

Additional inorganic nitrogen should be applied to the soil to compensate for this

and avoid crop yield and quality loss.

3.5.4.2. Treatment

The physical quality of these materials might be improved by screening and

shredding. Many of these materials are suitable for composting (Gendebien et al.,

2001). Much of the plant material waste from parks and gardens goes to mechanical

biological treatment facilities or straight to compost.


PTEs

Heavy metal content of wood wastes and other plant materials are low. CCA, copper

organics, and metals in paints may be present in wood waste. PTEs are unlikely in

plant waste and untreated wood unless they have been grown on contaminated

ground. Heavy metal concentrations reported for these wastes are from the UK and



Table 3.34 Concentration of PTEs in waste wood, bark and other plant material

(mg/kg dw; Davis and Rudd, 1999)

Metals Mean (min; max)

Cd <0.25

Cr 3.3 (<1; 9.9)

Cu 4.8 (3.1; 6.4)

Hg <0.01

Ni 0.3 (<1; <1)

Pb 2.4 (<1; 3.7)

Zn 18.5 (14.6; 22.3)

Organic compounds

Pesticides, creosote, light organic solvent preservatives (LOSP), micro-emulsion,

paint and stain, and varnish may be present in the waste.

Wood preservatives and pesticides such as pentachlorophenol, lindane or copper

chrome arsenate might be present in these wastes and therefore, the presence of

contaminants should be investigated prior to application. Concentrations of organic

compounds detected in waste wood, bark and other plant material are reported in

Table 3.35.

Table 3.35 Concentrations of organic compounds detected in waste wood, bark and

other plant material (Gendebien et al., 2001)

Organic compound Mean

Sum of 6 PAHs 0.6

Sum of PCBs 0.008

PCDD/F green waste 4.96 ± 3.56 ng TEQ/kg ± SD

PCDD/F in bark 1 ± 0.57 ng TEQ/kg ± SD

Pathogens

Wood waste from joinery and similar processes are unlikely to contain any harmful

organisms (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

With green plant material and rotted roots there is a possibility of plant pathogens,

particularly fungi being present (Davis and Rudd, 1999). Therefore, the origin of

waste plant matter has to be considered in case diseased material is present that

could act a source of infection for crops. Examples are haulms of potatoes infected

with the potato blight fungus Phytophthora infestans and rotten wood may harbour

the honey fungus, Armilleria, which can destroy trees and shrubs (Gendebien et al.,

2001). Noble and Roberts (2004) reviewed plant pathogens and nematodes, and

common name of plant diseases caused by these (Table 3.36). In Appendix D, plant


toxins that may occur in green compost are listed and these can also be present in

plant material (WRAP, 2009).


Table 3.36. Plant pathogens and nematodes, hosts and common name of diseases

caused, or of nematodes (Noble and Roberts, 2004)


Table 3.36 (cont.) Plant pathogens and nematodes, hosts and common name of

diseases caused, or of nematodes (Noble and Roberts, 2004)

3.5.5. Dredgings from inland waters


Dredging is an activity essential to navigation, maintaining the ecology and

biodiversity of waterways and adjacent land, the management of flood risk and

drainage activity. The consequences of not dredging, or carrying out limited

dredging, can be significant (AINA, 2007).

Dredgings are usually deposited near the area where they have been taken and if

suitable might be applied onto surrounding areas as it is very expensive to transport

the material, since it is heavier because of water content. Dredgings that are

unsuitable for landspreading due to contamination are disposed into landfills

(Gendebien et al., 2001).

Potential benefits for the application of dredgings to land are the supply of organic

matter and nutrients in the form of phosphate and organically bound nitrogen (Davis

and Rudd, 1999). If the dredgings are sandy and thus low on organic carbon content

they can be used for levelling purposes (Davis and Rudd, 1999). Disadvantages for

the landspreading of dredgings are mainly due to levels of contaminants and the

presence of undegradable plastic litter and metal scrap items that they might

contain, which could impede cultivation of the soil and be hazardous to farm animals

(Davis and Rudd, 1999). The mud of dredgings contains a high proportion of silts and

clays that are highly adsorptive of bacteria and viruses as well as metals and organic

contaminants (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

3.5.5.2. Treatment


Following recovery, dredgings are likely to be anaerobic and odorous and will

probably need to be aerated before landspreading (Gendebien et al., 2001).

If there is the presence of plastic and scrap metals they also need screening.


PTEs

The data available on heavy metal and other elements concentrations are from

samples of dredgings from a 100 km length canal (Davis and Rudd, 1999) and other

places in the UK (WRc, 2009). Available data are summarized in Table 3.37. Heavy

metal content in dredgings is high.

Table 3.37 PTEs /elements and other inorganic chemicals reported in dredgings (in

mg/kg dw)

Metals/elements Davis and Rudd, 1999 ADAS, 2009 WRc, 2009

Mean (min; max) *Mean Mean (min; max) n

Ag 0.1 (0; 23.1) NA NA NA

As 47.4 (9; 873) 19.0 NA NA

B 45.0 (9.9; 172) NA NA NA

Ba 243.8 (38.6; 731) NA NA NA

Be 1.8 (0.8; 9.7) NA NA NA

Cd 2.2 (0; 21) 3.0 0.76 (0.05; 4.2) 18

Co 36.4 (15; 94) NA NA NA

Cr 159.7 (25; 4011) 82.0 23.8 (3.03; 86.8) 18

Cu 136.8 (26; 1357) 152.0 56.6 (2.12; 242.8) 19

Hg 83.0 (0.1; 1570.7) 1.6 0.38 (0.04; 1.9) 18

Mg NA NA 3501.5 (9.88; 17204.3) 9

Mo 1.6 (0; 7.1) NA NA NA

Ni 79.3 (34; 204) 73.0 105.3 (7.8; 973.1) 18

Pb 408.9 (22; 8275) 166.0 168.4 (0.01; 1750) 19

Sb 10.0 (0; 146) NA NA NA

Se 3.7 (0.1; 23.1) NA NA NA

Sn 33.2 (9.7; 278) NA NA NA

Tl 0.1 (0; 5.2) NA NA NA

Va 68.7 (37.8; 104) NA NA NA

Zn 958.1 (154; 6671) 545.0 213.4 (25.9; 1063.0) 19

Inorganic compounds

Cyanides 0.6 (0; 2.6) NA NA NA

Sulphides 1805.1 (0; 6330) NA NA NA

NA - not available

*Mean analysis of 1000 British Waterways canal dredging samples based on 48% dry matter content.

Organic compounds


A summary of the range concentrations of organic contaminants by class reported in

sediments is presented in Table 3.38. All data, including individual compounds can

be found in Appendix E.

Table 3.38 Summary of range concentrations (minimum value, highest maximum

and highest mean reported within the class) for organic contaminants detected in

sediments in µg/kg dry weight (unless otherwise stated)(Allchin et al., 1999; Eljarrat

and Barcelo, 2003; Long et al., 1998; Daniels et al., 2000; Buser et al., 1998; Braga et

al., 2005; Ternes et al., 2002; López de Alda et al., 2002; Ferrer et al., 2004; Davis and

Rudd, 1999; Metre and Mahler, 2005; Micić and Hofmann, 2009; Eljarrat and

Barcelo, 2004)

Contaminant Minimum Maximum Mean (highest)

Brominated flame retardants <0.17 750 86.39

Pesticides nd 11 658 3002

Pharmaceuticals nd 48.6 NA

Phenols 2.1 292 23.4

Phthalates (DEHP) 229 19 421 7871

∑ PAHs 0 203 8900 (median)

∑ PCBs NA NA 108 (median)

∑PCDD/Fs 0.02 59 000 NA

Surfactants <0.5 2.83 mg/kg 30

Contamination of freshwaters with micro-organic compounds from agricultural or

industrial sources is common worldwide (Long et al., 1998). Long et al (1998)

investigated the pollution by organic contaminants in riverine systems in Northeast

England. Bed sediments from six freshwater tributaries of the Humber River were

collected for one year in 1995-96. In another study, Daniels et al (2000) collected

river bed sediments cores below a depth of 5 cm from a urban catchment and from a

rural river in South England. Results from these studies can be seen in Appendix E.

Metre and Mahler (2005) presented the trends of organic contaminants detected in

sediment cores from 38 USA lakes over a period of 30 years. The two main

conclusions were that organochlorine pesticides and PCBs concentrations were

decreasing over time, whereas PAHs concentrations are increasing (Metre and

Mahler, 2005).

Pharmaceutical concentrations in sediments, which are mainly hormones and

steroids, have been also recently published in a review paper (Monteiro and Boxall,

2010).

Pathogens

Risks from pathogens in sediments have been reported to be low and unlikely to be a

problem when this organic material is spread onto land (SEPA, 1998). However, a

recent publication reported that bacteria counts within sediment compartments

were consistently higher than for the water alone, and that the bed sediment were


found to represent a possible reservoir of pathogens (Droppo et al., 2009). Levels of

pathogens in bed sediment in colony-forming units were 1,3 x 105 for E. coli and 1.2 x

105 for Salmonella (Droppo et al., 2009). The lack of understanding on

pathogen/sediment associations may lead to an inaccurate estimate of public health

risk (Droppo et al., 2009).

3.5.6. Abattoir wastes


In this section, wastes from abattoirs include blood, gut contents, wash waters, and

sludge from dissolved air flotation (DAF) treatment where this process has been

used for the separation solids from any liquid waste materials of the abattoir (Davis

and Rudd, 1999).

It has been reported that 21% of an animal is waste when processed (Gendebien et

al., 2001). Some of the abattoir wastes, such as bones and hoof parts are recycled in

other industries (e.g. fertiliser and gelatine). In the EU, between 5 to 10 % of abattoir

waste is applied to land following composting or without any further treatment. This

waste mainly consists of gut contents, wash waters and blood (Gendebien et al.,

2001). For small-scale abattoirs, landspreading of the waste is probably the best

environmental option but likely to be much less appropriate for large-scale

operations (Mittal, 2007).

Whereas waste blood and stomach contents have a high fertilizer value due to their

high nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content, which makes them a good source

of plants nutrients, wash waters contain lower levels of nutrients (Mittal, 2007).

Abattoir wastes may also have a high conductivity and fat content (Davis and Rudd,

1999). Blood and gut content from abattoirs are included in the exempt industrial

wastes for land application. Since most of the exempt wastes are not pre-treated or

stored at the point of source, it can cause public nuisance due to odours,

environmental concerns and if spread on the soil surface it is unsightly and may have

the potential for disease transmission (Mittal, 2007). It is recommended that these

wastes should be immediately incorporated into arable land, or applied to grassland

by sub-surface injection following a 3 week period to allow the injection slots to

close before the use of the grass for grazing or conservation (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

Blood

Waste blood is produced in large quantities from abattoirs and used to be applied

onto land without further treatment as a source of nutrients. Nitrogen content in

waste blood is extremely high, typically exceeding 15 kg/m3

total nitrogen and 2

kg/m3 of ammonium nitrogen. The high nitrogen content combined with potassium

and phosphorus contents of 1 to 2 kg/m3, waste blood provides a good source of

plant nutrients, which are in a more available form when compared to other organic

wastes (Davis and Rudd, 1999). Potential disadvantages are if applied in excess to

plant requirements, these high levels of elements might cause water pollution and

pose a danger to plant health (Gendebien et al., 2001). Abattoir wastes also have a


high biological oxygen demand (BOD) that makes it readily degradable by soil

microorganisms and thus over application can result in anaerobic soil conditions

(Davis and Rudd, 1999).

In the EU, however, from the 1st

May 2003, the EU Animal By-products Regulations

require that certain by-products need to be treated before disposal (Defra, 2003).

Therefore, it is no longer permitted the disposal of untreated blood to sewers or

landfill or to recover untreated blood via application on land.

Gut contents

Gut contents mainly consist of partially digested feed or vegetable matter. Nitrogen

(5 kg/m3), phosphorus (1 kg/m

3) and potassium (1 kg/m

3) levels are high and in a

balanced mixture (5:1:1). Gut contents also contain ammonium nitrogen as an added

benefit (Davis and Rudd, 1999). The main disadvantages of gut contents are the

odours depending on the storage period and it might also contain pathogens.

Wash waters

Large volumes of wash waters are produced within abattoirs. These wash waters

might contain urine and dung from animal holding areas and washings from

distribution vehicles. Levels of nitrogen (1 kg/m3), phosphorus (0.5 kg/m

3) and

potassium (0.5 kg/m3) are lower when comparing to other abattoir wastes. A

moderate content of ammonium nitrogen (0.25 kg/m3) is also available. Agricultural

benefit from wash waters from abattoirs might not be achieved unless it is used for

irrigation (not for growing crops or grassland). This water waste might also contain

pathogens (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

Other abattoir wastes

Other abattoir wastes include waste from where animals are temporarily kept (also

known as lairage), wastes from biological treatment plants and fat (Davis and Rudd,

1999; WRc, 2009). Due to the amount of blood in wastes for treatment and disposal,

the nitrogen content can be very high, in excess of 8 kg/m3 and ammonium nitrogen

typically exceeding 1 kg/m3. Potassium, phosphorus and magnesium can be in excess

of 1 to 2 kg/m3. Different types of abattoirs produce different types and amounts of

fat, but chicken processing plants are sources of high fat materials. Adverse effects

on plant growth following application of animal fat have been observed at relatively

low fat percentages when compared to wastes containing other fats and oils (Davis

and Rudd, 1999). These wastes should also be incorporated into the soil.


PTEs

In the UK, the presence of metals has been reported for abattoir wastes (Davis and

Rudd, 1999) and a recent study from WRc (2009) collated data from different kinds

of abattoir wastes that can be spread onto land. Metal levels in blood (not treated


for data before 2003 and treated for data after 2003), gut contents and wash water

from these studies are summarised in Table 3.39.


Table 3.39 Metal concentrations in abattoir wastes in the UK (mean (min; max) in mg/kg)


Metals Davis and Rudd, 1999 WRc, 2009

Blood n Gut contents n Wash waters n Blood n Gut contents n Wash waters n

Cd <0.25

(<0.25; 0.68) 82 <0.25 6 <0.25 14

90.36

(0.002; 0.5) 10

0.01

(0.006; 0.018) 4

0.02

(0.005; 0.05) 7

Cr 0.3

(<1.0; 3.2) 80

0.2

(<1.0; <1.0) 5

1.1

(<1.0; 10.5) 14

3.5

(0.01; 7.7) 10

0.26

(0.132; 0.34) 3

0.32

(0.01; 1.53) 7

Cu 3.2

(0.3; 34.1) 54

2.4

(0.8; 7.5) 5

2.1

(1.0; 5.5) 12

35.9

(0.23; 53.2) 11

1.06

(0.80; 1.39) 4

0.59

(0.005; 3.65) 8

Hg <0.01

(<0.01; 10.24) 79

0.03

(<0.01; 0.14) 5

<0.01

(<0.01; 0.04) 14

0.04

(0.0002; 0.05) 8

0.02

(0.0001; 0.04) 3

3.41

(0.42; 9.62) 7

Ni 0.4

(<1.0; 5.7) 83

0.8

(<1.0; 4.6) 6

<1.0

(<1.0; 4.35) 14

4.32

(2.0; 4.9) 10

0.29

(0.25; 0.33) 3

0.30

(0.03; 1.11) 7

Pb 0.3

(<0.1; 10.0) 83

0.4

(<1.0; 2.1) 6

<1.0

(<1.0; 1.5) 14

91.3

(0.5; 116.3) 9

0.16

(0.11; 0.23) 4

0.18

(0.06; 0.5) 7

Zn 12.8

(1.0; 87.2) 73

9.0

(2.4; 34.1) 6

18.4

(1.8; 115.0) 13

11.3

(0.03; 40) 11

8.4

(4.98; 13.4) 5

123.1

(35.3; 293.7) 8


Organic compounds

In addition to veterinary medicines described in the livestock manure section, wash

water chemicals may contaminate the waste stream. Careful selection of washing

detergents using Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) will minimise any risk from

cleaning chemicals.

Very few data was found in the literature reporting the investigation of organic

contaminants in abattoir wastes and these data has been summarized in Table 3.40

(Gendebien et al., 2001). SEPA (1998) reported a low risk for adverse effects from

organic contaminants, and that these compounds in abattoir wastes are unlikely to

pose any problems.

Table 3.40 Organic contaminants in abattoir wastes (in mg/kg dry weight; Gendebien

et al., 2001)

Organic contaminants Stomach contents Sludge

Min Max Min Max

Fluoranthene <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 <0.5

Benzo(b)fluoranthene <0.1 0.4 <0.1 0.4

Benzo(a)pyrene <0.1 0.6 <0.1 0.6

Sum of 7 PCBs <0.0007 0.2 <0.0007 0.2

Pathogens

Abattoirs veterinary ante-mortem inspections ensure that the animal used for

human consumption is not suffering from any noticeable disease. However,

slaughtered animals may carry pathogenic bacteria without any symptoms and thus

abattoir wastes should be used with caution (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

In a study by Pepperel et al. (2003), 28 commercial abattoirs were surveyed for

quantitative levels of pathogens in wastes to be applied onto land. In all wastes

studied (lairage, lairage/stomach content, stomach content, blood and effluent) the

most common bacterial pathogen found was Campylobacter, with an average

incidence of 5.7%. This pathogen was detected in effluent and blood from poultry

abattoirs (12.5%, each) and in lairage and blood from red meat abattoirs (8.3%,

each). Another pathogen, Listeria monocytogenes was found in only 1.1% of all

waste samples but not in any sample from poultry abattoirs. Salmonella and E.coli

were not isolated from any abattoir waste sample. The overall incidence of the

protozoan pathogens Giardia and Cryptosporidium in red meat waste abattoirs was

around 52.5% and 40%, respectively. The most contaminated waste type with

protozoan pathogens was lairage waste followed by effluent (Pepperel et al., 2003).

In another study, Mittal (2004) reports that abattoir wastewater contains several

million colony forming units (cfu) per 100 ml of total coliform, faecal coliform and

Streptococcus groups of bacteria and that the presence of these non-pathogenic

microbes indicates the possible presence of pathogens of enteric origin such as the

ones mentioned in the study by Pepperel et al. (2003).


3.5.7. Textile industry waste


Textile waste comprises either textile processing industry sludge or wool industry

waste. Sludge from process industry may be liquid or in viscid form, depending on

the level of dewatering. Wool waste is very fatty, viscid sludge that cannot be spread

as it is. However, it can be spread in the form of dry waste (wool dust).

Textile industries use large volumes of water because textile products undergo

different and successive treatments such as pre-washing, bleaching, pre-treatment,

dying, soaping, washing, initial dressing, second dressing, rinsing, etc. Quality of the

effluents produced by the textile processing industry depends on the type of fibres,

the dyeing and printing processes and the products used. The effluents have a high

chemical oxygen demand (COD), which is difficult to breakdown by chemical or

biological processes.

Textile waste contains little organic matter, average nitrogen content and low levels

of phosphorus and potassium that are not very beneficial for plant growth. Textile

waste also has low C/N ratio that would make the little organic matter break down

quickly following application to soils (Gendebien et al., 2001). Therefore, textile

waste has low agronomic value that could be improved with liming or composting

with an additional carbonaceous structuring medium. On the other hand, waste from

the wool industry has much more agronomic value due to higher potassium and

magnesium content.

3.5.7.2. Treatment

Some textile industries have on-site effluent treatment plants that usually use

traditional biological procedures that might be preceded by physical-chemical pre-

treatment. Characteristics of sludge from the treatment of textile industry effluent

are dependent of the type of treatment applied to the liquid waste, which might be

physical-chemical (coagulation-flocculation) or/and biological (Gendebien et al.,

2001).

Concentrates from washing the wool contain fatty matter that cannot be applied to

land as they stand. Therefore, these wastes need to be mixed with bark to make

them like pellets so they not adhere to the handling equipment. This type of mixture

can create a potassium based organic medium. This breaks down slowly in the soil

due to soil nitrogen and is rich in potassium, sodium and magnesium (Gendebien et

al., 2001).

The dust from the wool is a dry waste with a C/N ratio of around 6, and rich in

potassium and nitrogen. However, it can cause problems since it can contain plant

seeds that following application colonise the area being spread (Gendebien et al.,

2001).



PTEs

Textile processing sludge can contain higher levels of metals than other industrial

sludges that are spread onto land. Dyes used in the textile industry may contain

various metals that contribute for the colouring effect. Therefore, the washing

process takes dyes residues into effluents treatment plants that can concentrate into

the sludge. Levels of metals on the order of several 100 mg/kg can result (Davis and

Rudd, 1999). Chromium levels, for example, are generally higher than those found in

domestic sewage sludge due to the use of metalliferous dyestuffs. However, levels

are still below the limits established for landspreading (Gendebien et al., 2001).

Concentrations of metals from wastes derived from the textile industry are reported

in Table 3.41. Wool washing/wool combing industry by-products contain few metals.

Table 3.41 Metal concentrations in textile waste in mg/kg dw.

Metal

/element

Textile waste sludge Wool scourers *Gendebien et al., 2001 WRc 2009 (n=6) *Gendebien et al., 2001 WRc 2009 (n=5)

Mean (min; max)

Cd 0.5 (0.15; 1.2) 0.26 (0.08; 0.3) 0.5 (<0.25; 0.7) 0.17 (0.12; 0.18)

Cr 40 (<1; 430) 9.5 (0.005; 11.4) 14 (1.5; 20) 11.5 (10.9; 14.0)

Cu 131 (0.5; 892) 31.5 (0.5; 37.7) 13 (1.7; 26) 29.3 (22.7; 31.0)

Hg (0.4 (<0.01; 3.1) 0.25 (0.005; 0.30) 0.06 (<0.01; 0.1) 0.22 (0.006; 0.27)

Ni 8 (<1; 31) 7.9 (0.005; 17.4) 7 (0.5; 9) 2.6 (0.9; 9.5)

Pb 7 (<1; 22) 12.0 (6.1; 13.2) 7 (1.3; 11) 5.3 (4.7; 5.5)

Se 4.6 (1.8; 5.4) NA 8 NA

Zn 188 (1.4; 1249) 266.2 (49.3; 310) 62 (12; 95) 301.8 (124.6; 346.1)

*number of samples is not available


Organic contaminants

All waste types from textile manufacturing contain a variety of organic contaminants.

Textile industry includes finishing processes where the textiles are dyed. Methods

used for bleaching the fabric can lead to concentrations of organo-halogenated

compounds in the sludge. Oxidisation techniques such as ozonation and UV radiation

are now being tested to destroy some of the AOX present in the sludge (Gendebien

et al., 2001).

Wool processing by-products are likely to contain organic compounds from treating

fleeces with pesticides that end up in the sludge when the wool is washed. Pesticides

are used to treat sheep, such as sheep dip or to treat the wool. Organophosphorus

and organochlorine compounds are often found in association with the grease

fraction of the sludge. Imported wool can be found to contain compounds such as

gamma-HCH (lindane) and DDT.

Surfactants are widely used in the textile finishing industry. All types of surfactants

(anionic, non-ionic, cationic and amphoteric) are used but anionic and non-ionic

substances dominate. Surfactants in the textile industry serve mainly as detergents,


wetting agents, de-aeration agents, leveling, dispersing and softening agents,

emulsifying and spotting agents, anti-electrostatics, foaming and defoaming agents,

after-treatment agents for improving dye fastness improvement and accelerating

dye fixing (OECD, 2004).

Collection water also contains small amounts of degradation products that result

from the breaking down of bleaching agents and dyestuffs.

Most industries are negligible sources of PCDD/Fs to municipal wastewater

treatment (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Nevertheless, industrial

sources of PCDD/Fs to wastewater can be important. In a study by Klöpffer et al.

(1990 cited in McLachlan et al., 1996) identified the textile industry as the most

important industrial sources of PCDD/Fs to wastewater treatment plants. They also

suggested that pentachlorophenol that contains trace amounts of PCDD/Fs was a

major source of contamination within the textile industry.

In the textile industry, biocides are also used to control bacteria, fungi, mold,

mildew, and algae. This control reduces or eliminates the problems of deterioration,

staining and odours (White and Kuehl, 2002). About 5 % of textiles are finished with

biocides for the consumer end-use (OECD, 2004). In the carpet industry biocides play

an important role to impart wool fibre lifetime. Mothproofing agents formulated

from synthetic pyrethroids (permethrin and cyfluthrin) are used against a range of

textile pests. Permethrin -based formulations account for approximately 90 % of the

market (OECD, 2004). Additionally, biocides may be present on textiles for the

following reasons:

� Biocides are used to improve storage stability of textiles (preservation

agents);

� Biocides in raw cotton fibres such as insecticides (organochlorines,

organophosphates, pyrethroids, and carbamates), herbicides, harvest aid

chemicals; and

� Residues of biocidal chemicals are used to prevent or treat sheep infestations

by external pests (ectoparasites such as ticks, mites and blowfly) and might

therefore be present in greasy wool. These are removed in wool scouring into

the wastewater. Biocide contents of the processed wools is variable and

dependent of the countries of origin of the wools:

� Organochlorines: 0.2 to 5 g t-1

greasy wool

� Organophosphates: 1 to 19 g t-1

greasy wool

� Pyrethroids: 0.05 to 6.3 g t-1

greasy wool.

Biocides typically used in the textile industry include (OECD, 2004):

� 2,2’-Dihydroxy-5,5’-dichlorodiphenylmethane

� 2-Phenylphenol

� Sodium-2-phenyl-phenolate.

� Quaternary ammonium salts

� Copper-8-quinolinolate

� Dichlorophen

� Zinc naphthenate


� Thiobendazone

� Organotin compounds

� 2,4-Dichlorobenzyl alcohol

� 2-Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol.

Concentrations for organic compounds in textile waste are presented in Table 3.42.

Table 3.42 Organic compounds levels in textile waste in mg/kg dw (Gendebien et al

2001)

Organic compounds Textile waste sludge Wool scourers

Mean min; max

Fluoranthene 0.06 <0.01; 0.04

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.05 <0.01; <0.01

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.02 <0.01; 0.01

Sum of 7 PCBs 0.01 <0.05; <0.05

Pathogens

Pathogens may be present in waste from fibre production but not from wastes

further down the manufacturing line. In theory, there is still a risk that wool wastes

might contain spores of the anthrax bacillus, Bacillus anthracis. However, preventive

industrial practices and the virtual elimination of human and animal anthrax from

most developed countries imply that the risk of using such wastes is negligible (Davis

and Rudd, 1999).

3.5.8. Tannery and leather waste


Wastes within this category are similar to textile wastes. The raw material in tannery

industry is mammalian skin, which is derived principally from animals that are

butchered for the food industry. The tannery process consists of transforming the

raw hide into leather that has a significant value. This process follows a sequence of

organised chemical reactions and mechanical processes using machinery. Among

these processes, tanning is the fundamental stage that confers to leather its stability

and characteristics (Gendebien et al., 2001). The manufacture of leather generates

both liquid and solid wastes. The latter consist of hairs that can be composted if they

are pre-degraded in the preparation of hides. The tanning operation is carried in an

aqueous environment and during this operation collagen, the principal protein of the

skin, will fix the tanning agents to their reactive sites to stop putrefaction. In order to

be transformed into a commercial product, the leather is dried with colouring agents

and then fat liquored with the natural or synthetic fats in order to render the leather

flexible (Gendebien et al., 2001). The products that are capable of being fixed to skin

are many and varied but they can be classified into three groups:

� Mineral tannins (mostly chromium). Quick, simple and very cost

effective, that means 70% of used tannins. But the chromium has a very

high impact on the environment.


� Vegetable type tannins (mimosa, chestnut, quebracho). 20% of used

tannins. Liquid sludge from vegetable tannins has no impact on the

environment.

� Other organic tannins (formaldehyde, synthetic tannins, fish oil).

Tanneries are a process within the textile industry but tannery wastes can contain

particular contaminants. Tanneries wastes contain high levels of nitrogen that are

highly available due to the low C/N ratio of liquid sludge. However, it can also

contain high levels of chromium and salts. These wastes can be odorous due to their

high sulphide content.

Only sludge from tanneries using vegetable tannins can be landspread. The

spreading of tannery sludge coming from a process using mineral tannins is often

blocked because of its heavy metal content.

3.5.8.2. Treatment

Most tannery sludges are dewatered to reduce the storage space required and

transportation costs (Gendebien et al., 2001). Composting of dewatered sludge can

further reduce storage, odour problems and improve the C/N ratio (Gendebien et al.,

2001). Fertilisers can be produced from tannery sludges with the addition of lime to

the wastewater making it alkaline, then adding ferrous or aluminium sulfate to

coagulate it. The mixture is then dewatered, leaving a sludge containing about 20%

dry matter. The sludge can be fermented and composted before the application to

land (Gendebien et al., 2001).


PTEs

Tannery wastes can contain high levels of chromium, which is particularly toxic for

the environment and the regulations set strict tolerance levels both in sludge and in

the soil. Levels of other PTEs are low. Tanning agents are chosen for the particular

properties they give leather, and chromium is the most popular. Concentrations of

PTEs in tannery sludge are presented in Table 3.43.

Table 3.43 Concentrations for PTEs in tannery sludge (mg/kg dry weight)

Metals Davis and Rudd, 1999 Gendebien et al., 2001

Mean (min; max)

Cd <0.25 (<0.25; 0.04) 0.17 (0.15; 0.7)

Cr (169.0; 305.0) 128 (92; 162)

Cu <1.0 (<1.0; 1.6) 10 (8; 13)

Hg <0.001 0.03 (0.03; 0.04)

Ni <1.0 (<1.0; 0.84) 1.5 (1.1; 2)

Pb <1.0 (<1.0; 2.1) 4 (2; 5)

Zn (2.8; 10.2) 27 (20; 31)


Organic compounds

Biocides may be used in a variety of processes in the tannery industry, and

halogenated biocides are still in use (IPPC, 2003). Surfactants are also used in

tanneries in many different processes including liming, degreasing, tanning and

dyeing. The most commonly used surfactant is NPE (IPPC, 2003). No data has been

found on the concentrations of organic compounds in tannery leather waste.

Pathogens

Pathogens may be present on the hides and remnant flesh at the very initial stages

of the tanning process. Chemical and other treatments given to hides in tanneries

effectively disinfect the waste, with the exception of the spores of the anthrax

bacillus. In the past, infections occurred in workers handling these materials and

sporadic cases in animals have been reported. However, these problems have now

disappeared, as anthrax in farm animals is extremely rare in the UK (Davis and Rudd,

1999).

3.5.9. Waste from food and drinks preparation


Waste from food and drinks preparation includes animal food wastes, such as dairy,

egg processing, and meat processing, wastes from the breweries, distilleries and soft

drinks preparation, and sugar and preserves producers. In this section wastes from

animal food production are separated from wastes from other food and drinks

preparation.

A large volume of waste from food and drink processing industries is re-used in

animal feed (e.g. vegetable residue, oil production residue) and in the production of

organic fertilisers.

The food processing industry uses large volumes of water, which produces large

volumes of wastewater that is generally loaded with organic matter. The effluent

produced in food industry contains high amounts of potassium, and since it is in

solution in the liquid phase it is thus rapidly available to plants. Food processing

industry effluent is variable in composition depending on the type of industry and

the period of the year for seasonal industries and this effluent is either spread

directly to land or treated in an on-site or domestic/industrial wastewater treatment

plant, which generates sludge. The sludge produced by the effluent treatment plants

contains high levels of organic matter and nitrogen with a low C/N ratio and needs to

be stabilised because it ferments very easily, since the organic matter it contains

break down rapidly. Therefore, these wastes can be odorous during storage and

spreading.


Food and drink processing industries effluents are frequently loaded with chloride

and sodium from the cleaning agents used. If it is spread in too large quantities or

under the wrong conditions, salts can damage soil structure, reduce the availability

of soil water for plant uptake and be toxic to plant growth (Gendebien et al., 2001).

The limiting factor for fertilizer irrigation and/or for spreading effluent or sludge is

generally the nitrogen level for the dairy industry and frequently the potassium level

for other industries.

Animal food wastes

This section examines waste management for three animal food categories: dairy,

egg processing and meat processing.

Dairy wastes

The waste stream characteristics are dependent on the product being processed. In

general, wastes from the dairy industry contain high concentrations of organic

materials (e.g. proteins, carbohydrates and lipids), high nitrogen concentrations,

high-suspended oil and/or grease contents, which need special treatment to

minimize environmental problems.

Dairies use large volumes of water, mainly for cleaning. Many dairies have their own

effluent treatment plants and produce large amounts of sludge that also contains

high levels of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus and organic matter. The more

common practice throughout the dairy industry is to salvage, pool, and isolate

recovered whey and dairy products for use as animal feed (Chambers, 1999). Land

application is usually the last option for disposal of salvaged whey and dairy

products. Application rates per acre and fertilizer value such as nitrogen and

phosphates need to be considered when this method is used (Chambers, 1999).

Egg processing

During the processing of eggs the major sources that generate waste are during shell

washing, candling (technique that uses light to check the quality of the egg), sizing

and the washing and cleaning operations. Incidental waste is also generated from

broken eggs. Whereas in rural settings most waste streams are applied onto land as

fertilizer, in non-rural settings many facilities discharge to a sewage treatment plant

(Chambers, 1999).

Meat processing

At meat processing plants where products are prepared for human consumption

(e.g. pies, canned meat, stock, etc). Edible fats are rendered into edible tallow and

lard. Some rendering of inedible fats and blood processing might also be carried out.

Common salt and a range of chemicals for curing, smoking, preserving and colouring

are used. These include sulphur dioxide (a preservative), potassium nitrate (for

pickling), sodium nitrate (meat colour fixative) and sodium nitrite (for curing,


colouring and preserving). Detergents, bleach and disinfectants are also used for

maintaining plant hygiene (DoE, 1995).

Preserves producers

Preserves producing industries produce an effluent that contains high levels of

organic matter, potassium, chloride and sodium resulting from washing, peeling,

blanching vegetables, and washing the equipment and the production areas


Breweries and distilleries

Effluents from the brewing and distilling industry are usually treated in a treatment

plant and might also be anaerobically digested. Anaerobic digestion is to reduce the

amount of sludge being produced and to generate energy to heat the reactor where

the process occurs (Gendebien et al., 2001).

Brewery industry wastes contain grain husks and yeast separated during malting and

brewing processes that is mainly used as animal feed or reprocessed for use in food

or nutrient materials (Gendebien et al., 2001). Distillery effluent contains high levels

of potassium, sodium and sulphur and little suspended material.

Sugar producers

Sugar producing effluents contain high levels of suspended materials including soil

particles and other organic residues. These effluents contain high levels of

potassium, nitrogen, chloride and sodium. Sludge generated by this industry are

mainly waste lime and pulp residues.

Soft drink waste

In the soft drinks industry, most of the water is used for rinsing containers,

equipment, floor washing, etc. Therefore, the waste produced by this industry is low

in solids but may have high sugar content (Gendebien et al., 2001).

3.5.9.2. Treatment

Stabilisation of the sludges from the food and drinks industry might be achieved with

liming (Gendebien et al., 2001). It is also possible to compost food processing

industry sludge, which enables the organic matter to be stabilised, reduces the

odour and increases its agronomic value. Anaerobic digestion is also a possibility and

is a very effective method for transforming the organic matter in methane, which

generates a gas with a high calorific value that can be re-used by the company

(Gendebien et al., 2001). This process is frequently used within the food processing

industry and significantly reduces the amount of organic carbon from the effluent,

producing a minimum amount of sludge.



PTEs

Very few PTEs are found in typical effluent from this industry. Small amounts of PTEs

in dyes and inks may enter from packaging and using inks without metals would

eliminate this source. Another minor source of PTEs is the inevitable wearing of

machinery. Concentrations of metals in sludge and liquid wastes from the animal

food production are compiled in Table 3.44. In Table 3.45, concentrations of PTEs in

different food and drink industries are also reported.


Table 3.44 Concentration of PTEs in the animal food production industry

Metals

Dairy Egg processing Animal food processing

Liquid waste Sludge

Davis and Rudd, 1999 WRc, 2009 n WRc, 2009 n WRc, 2009 n WRc, 2009 n

Mean (min; max) in mg/kg dry weight

Cd <0.25

(<0.25; 0.5)

6.1

(0.005; 416.7) 143

22.4

(0.5; 46.1) 17

64.2

(0.14; 1111.1) 96

58.2

(0.01; 333.3) 52

Cr 0.4

(<1.0; 8.9)

41.5

(0.12; 500) 147

222.2

(0.5; 500) 17

304.2

(2.48; 1111.1) 102

131.2

(0.5; 1040) 52

Cu 2.4

(0.0; 15.8)

167.8

(0.1; 5866.7) 183

1272.6

(13.8; 3963.1) 20

1225.5

(5.6; 7766.7) 112

912.8

(0.94; 15680) 75

Hg <0.01

(<0.01; 0.14)

5.4

(0.007; 41.7) 138

2.8

(0.05; 4.6) 10

7.57

(0.003; 111.1) 87

6.41

(0.0004; 33.3) 48

Ni 0.3

(<1.0; 3.7)

82.3

(1.6; 1416.7) 149

546.0

(100; 1880) 20

1127.0

(1.7; 4800) 112

817.8

(8.2; 2980) 62

Pb 5.8

(<1.0; 250)

18.1

(0.06; 416.7) 145

34.7

(0.5; 50) 20

80.8

(0.98; 1111.1) 101

62.5

(0.5; 333.3) 52

Zn 1.7

(0.1; 209.0)

269.5

(0.5; 5958.3) 184

1395.9

(7.05; 5000) 20

1612.1

(9.3; 7400) 112

601.0

(2.8; 3123.3) 75



Table 3.45 Concentration of PTEs in the food and drinks production industry

Metals

Beverages Baking Vegetable/fruit processing 1Sludge

Davis and Rudd,

1999 WRc, 2009 n WRc, 2009 n WRc, 2009 n

Gendebien et al.,

2001


Cd 0.03

(<0.25; 1.1)

271.0

(0.006; 2500) 73

97.4

(0.02; 714.3) 60

94.6

(0.001; 1428.6) 196

0.8

(0.01; 10)

Cr 3.2

(<1.0; 78)

256.8

(0.07; 2500) 81

180.6

(0.12; 714.3) 60

180.8

(0.1; 1428.6) 203

28

(0.05; 240)

Cu 3.1

(0.2; 314.0)

1103.9

(0.06; 9928.6) 120

717.6

(2.04; 4020) 74

1205.3

(0.06; 9928.6) 235

57

(0.10; 379)

Hg <0.02

(<0.01; 0.65)

34.6

(0.01; 250) 59

12.6

(0.02; 71.4) 46

16.9

(0.02; 384.6) 157

0.2

(<0.01; 8)

Ni 2.4

(<1.0; 154)

593.8

(0.03; 2700) 97

544.9

(1.13; 2957.1) 66

604.3

(0.14; 6300) 224

14

(0.10; 154)

Pb 1.3

(<1.0; 63)

258.0

(0.04; 2500) 84

115.5

(0.38; 714.3) 60

106.8

(0.03; 1428.6) 201

10

(0.10; 250)

Se NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.7

(0.35; 6)

Zn 9.9

(0.2; 163.0)

875.6

(0.19; 4075) 123

958.3

(0.06; 5000) 74

673.1

(0.07; 6200) 231

199

(0.10; 1815)

n– number of samples

1 – not specified from which industry the sludge is from



Organic compounds

Wastes from the food and drink industry are by nature free of contaminants (Davis and

Rudd, 1999). Nevertheless, Gendebien et al. (2001) reported concentrations for a range of

organic contaminants detected in these wastes. These data are listed in Table 3.46.

Table 3.46 Concentrations of organic contaminants detected in food and drink industry

sludge (Gendebien et al., 2001)

Organic contaminant Mean (min; max)

Fluoranthene 0.2 (0.01; 0.3)

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.04 (0.01; 0.05)

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.04 (0.01; 0.06)

∑ 7 PCBs 0.07 (0.02; 0.21)

Pathogens

The origin and processing of food and drink industry wastes use raw materials that are liable

to contain enteric pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli O 157 and Campylobacter

spp. In the past, outbreaks of bacterial gastro-enteritis have been blamed to the food

industry, such as dried egg, coconut and milk powder, and animal and fish meals (Davis and

Rudd, 1999). Waste food that has been cooked can be assumed to be pathogen free but

only immediately after production since the potential for recontamination by enteric

pathogens is possible if the wastes are allowed to be browsed by rodents and scavenging

birds (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

Food and drink industry wastes can also contain plant pathogenic organisms. In particular

potato nematode cysts, which constitute a major pest for potato crops, are endemic in

Europe and can be in the effluent discharged from vegetable processing factories. Water

and soil sediment from potato starch and sugar factories may contain cysts and spread the

pests if landspread. Beet necrotic yellow vein virus (BNYVV) is a causal agent of rhyzomania

in sugar beet and could potentially occur in the sludge receiving discharges from infected

crops (Gendebien et al., 2001).

Wastes from the brewery and distillery industry can be considered pathogen free because

of the processes to which they have been subjected. Those from preparation of fruit juices

and soft drinks are pathogen free due to their acidity.

3.5.10. Waste from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture


Chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture waste is sludge from the biological synthesis of

chemicals and pharmaceuticals, respectively. The chemical and pharmaceutical industry

covers a wide range of industries such as ammonia, ammonium sulphate and gelatine

production (Gendebien et al., 2001).


Wastes produced in the pharmaceutical industry are mainly biomass, which are cells from

the fermentation process, synthesis residues, alcohol and organic solvents from the cleaning

processes, product residues and dust from reprocessing. Pharmaceuticals are produced

using synthesis or fermentation. Wastes generated by synthesis are generally synthesis

residues and solvents, whereas wastes generated by fermentation are typically biomass and

fermentation liquid (Gendebien et al., 2001). Of these wastes, fermentation residues are the

most likely to be landspread since the biomass breaks down in the soil providing nutrients

for plant growth.

Large volumes of waste are produced by the chemical industry, some of them with

agronomic benefits if landspread. These include waste ammonia, ammonium sulphate and

wastes from the manufacture of fertilisers. The quality of these wastes is very variable and

in some countries their application to land is not allowed. Some of these wastes contain

nutrients that are beneficial to plant growth, such as ammonium and ammonium sulphate

that have very high nitrogen content. These wastes should therefore be applied to land at

very low rates.

3.5.10.2. Treatment

Depending on the nature and origin of the waste, they can be treated by stabilisation via

digestion or composting or addition of lime or a controlled pasteurisation process



PTEs

PTEs may be added as ingredients for the product, e.g. mineral supplements, or may enter

from catalysts. The raw animal, plant and fungi material could introduce PTEs and this can

be controlled as described in the previous section on livestock manure. Concentrations of

PTEs in different wastes from the chemical and pharmaceutical industry are presented in

Table 3.47.

Table 3.47 Concentrations of PTEs in wastes from the chemical and pharmaceutical industry

(Gendebien et al., 2001)

Metals

Type of waste

Pharmaceutical Ammonia Ammonium

sulphate

Gelatine

production


Cd <0.25 0.2 (<0.25; 1) <0.25 1.3 (0.7; 2.5)

Cr <1.0 3 (<1.0; 25) <1.0 14 (6; 37)

Cu 3.5 (0.0; 13) 4 (<1.0; 18) 0.6 (<1.0; 2.2) 17 (4; 45)

Hg <0.01 <0.01 0.1 (<0.01; 0.6) 1.3 (0; 10)

Ni 0.5 (<1.0; 3.4) 0.3 (<1.0; 1.7) <1.0 (<1.0; 1.0) 14 (1; 39)

Pb <1.0 2 (<1.0; 19) <1.0 12 (2; 22)

Zn 6.3 (0.5; 19.5) 5 (<1.0; 18) 0.9 (<1.0; 2.8) 411 (92; 1178)


Organic compounds

A large variety of organic contaminants may be present depending on what is being

produced. The waste of most interest for land spreading is that of ammonia types from

fertiliser manufacture, and waste from the fermentation process in pharmaceutical primary

process (Gendebien 2001). Particular care needs to be taken when biomass originates from

antibiotic production. Most antibiotics are removed during the extraction process but the

sludge might still contain traces. Therefore, antibiotics remaining in the waste may have

adverse effects on soil microorganisms that could result in dissemination of resistance to

antibiotics in the long term.

Organic chemical entry is tightly controlled in this industry to ensure the exact content of

the product. Research into alternative pharmaceuticals and chemical treatments provide

new information about less persistent chemical options. This is achieved through Green

chemistry techniques, environmental risk assessment and use of REACh data (Clark 2006).

Pathogens

Pathogens are present in animal, plant and fungi raw material waste. As discussed in

previous sections, pathogens have diffuse sources that are not controllable. They enter the

process with raw material but will be eliminated as waste before reaching the primary and

secondary processing stages to avoid contamination of the product.

It is possible that pathogens are present at later stages for testing the product if

appropriate.

3.6. Inorganic wastes

Inorganic wastes arising from industry and considered in this section are: decarbonation

sludge; sludge from the production of drinking water; waste lime, lime sludge and waste

gypsum.

Soil pH and Liming

In soils, the pH is very important for optimal plant development and agricultural crop

production. A range of factors, including soil type, soil structure, rainfall, and the agricultural

production system influences soil pH. Soil pH tends to decrease due to rainfall and the

removal of elements by crop production and harvesting. Therefore, it is important to

maintain soil pH. This is done by regularly adding basic elements such as calcium and

magnesium as liming materials.

When evaluating a lime product there are two important factors:

� The Total Neutralising Value (TNV)

The total neutralising value of a lime product is determined by comparing the neutralising

value of the product to the total neutralising value of pure calcium carbonate, which has a

value of 100. The ground limestone (calcium carbonate) is the most common form of lime


sold and has a TNV of 90%. The standard for licensed ground limestone products is a TNV

greater than 90% (Gendebien et al., 2001).

� The fineness

There is also a standard of fineness for licensed ground limestone products to guarantee the

good efficacy of the TNV. The standard for licensed ground limestone products is a fineness

of 100% through a 35 mm sieve and 35% through a 0.15 mm sieve. The fineness and

uniformity of the fineness of the product has a direct impact on the ability to spread the

product evenly and guarantee its solubility. A finer material will react faster with the soil

than a product that has large particle sizes (Gendebien et al., 2001).

Lime application is of agronomic benefit in regions with acid or neutral soil.

3.6.1. Sludge from the production of drinking water


Following the treatment of raw water for the production of drinking water, the residue

arising is sludge, which is composed of impurities removed and precipitated from the water

together with the residues from any chemical treatment used.

Waterworks sludge can be classified either as a coagulant, natural, groundwater or

softening sludge (Gendebien et al., 2001). Typically, surface water is treated by chemical

coagulation and rapid gravity filtration, which produces aluminium or ferric sludge if

aluminium and iron are used as the coagulant chemical. Therefore, coagulant sludge has a

gelatinous appearance and contains high concentrations of aluminium or iron salts with a

mixture of organic and inorganic materials and hydroxide precipitates. Natural sludge or

slow sand sludge results from the washing of slow sand filters. Softening sludge resulting

from the softening of hard waters mainly contains calcium carbonate and magnesium

hydroxide precipitates with some organic and inorganic substances.

Waterworks sludge does not contain any obvious attributes that could be associated with

agricultural benefit. Therefore, spreading of these wastes to agricultural land or other land

is potentially a major disposal route. Nevertheless, in some circumstances, there might be

an agricultural benefit since waterworks sludge can contain sulphur, trace elements and

small amounts of organic matter. Benefits resulting from the application to land of

coagulant sludge are not easily demonstrated. Softening sludge can be used for liming of

agricultural land. Natural sludge or slow sand sludge may contain enough organic matter

with organically bound nutrients that makes them beneficial for agricultural land


The application of waterworks sludge to land raises some concerns about the potential

adverse effects on plant growth, concentrations of PTEs and aluminium and possible

contamination of surface or groundwaters. Accumulation of aluminium or iron due to

extended applications of sludge is not likely to cause problems, especially if the soil pH is

above 6.0. Nevertheless, in Scotland, concerns were raised that aluminium rich sludge

applied to acidic soils could have deleterious effects on the growth of barley, particularly if

soil pH falls below 5.5 (Gendebien et al., 2001). Accumulation of iron in the topsoil of


pasture land, after application of sludge from drinking water treatment plants, could have

deleterious effect on the copper metabolism of grazing animals, especially sheep. It has

been reported that aluminium and iron hydroxides in coagulant sludges can adsorb soluble

phosphorus and thus reduce its availability to plants and affect plant growth. However, if

necessary, the co-application of this sludge with sewage sludge or the addition of

supplemental phosphorus to the soil would eliminate this effect (Gendebien et al., 2001).

The application of sludge from drinking water treatment plants to forest land has been

investigated in several countries. In one USA study, liquid alum sludge has been applied to

deciduous and coniferous forested land, and after one year it was concluded that no

adverse effects on tree growth or nutrient uptake occurred in the short term. However,

trees grow slowly and thus measurements need to continue for many years before

conclusions can be drawn (Dillon, 1997).

Land reclamation could also be a significant disposal route for waterworks sludge. Potential

benefits of using sludge from drinking water treatment include the pH buffering capacity,

soil conditioning properties and capacity to adsorb metals (Gendebien et al., 2001).


PTEs

The quality of the sludge will depend on the type of treatment used. If low-grade coagulant

chemicals are used, the sludge might be contaminated with PTEs . Concentrations of PTEs in

sludge generated from drinking water production were obtained from WRc (2009) and are

listed in Table 3.48.

Table 3.48 Concentrations of PTEs in sludge from waterworks in mg/kg dry weight (WRc,

2009)

Metal Mean (min; max) n

Cd 56.6 (0.0005; 5917.2) 107

Cr 1077.3 (0.01; 112 426) 107

Cu 2374.7 (0.001; 242 603) 107

Hg 17.4 (0.000002; 1775.1) 105

Ni 1302.5 (0.02; 118 343) 106

Pb 1997.6 (0.005; 207 101) 107

Zn 9590.3 (0.03; 994 082) 107

Organic compounds

The formation of AOX has been reported following drinking water disinfection by both

chlorination and ozone. These disinfection processes may lead to the formation of

trihalomethanes with bromine derivatives also formed if bromine is present in the water

(Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001). However, concentrations of organic compounds in sludge arising

from the preparation of drinking water have not been found.


Pathogens

There is a possibility that sludge from drinking water treatment plants can contain

pathogens such as Cryptosporidium, which can be removed from the raw water at the

treatment plant.

3.6.2. Decarbonation sludge


In power stations, boilers that use hot water need a conditioning system to treat cubic

meters of water coming from river, ground water or spring. The soluble residues, such as

calcium and magnesium bicarbonates, present in the water make it hard, which affects

pipes and the boiler durability. Therefore, a process of chemical precipitation is used to

reduce hardness from the water, known as “lime softening”. This process causes soluble

salts to become insoluble and then they are removed by sequential sedimentation. Lime is

predominantly used for maintaining the pH value at the ideal range for the precipitation of

decarbonation sludge. Other processes might also be used to precipitate soluble salts from

water and those influence the size of the carbonate particles and reactivity of this lime with

the soil. In some installations, the precipitation is performed on a sandy substrata and gives

small granulates of carbonate that have very low reactivity with the soil.

The origin of the water used in the boiler influences sludge quality. Therefore, if the water is

from canal or river in industrial zones it may contain hydrocarbons and heavy metal

residues, whereas no problems arise if it is ground water (Gendebien et al., 2001).

In decarbonation sludge, the only significant elements obtained are calcium and

magnesium. The agronomic value of this waste is the benefit that calcium adds to the soil

and agricultural crop production. In analysis carried out, the total neutralising value of the

decarbonation sludge cakes at 60% dry matter was 30% total neutralising value.

3.6.2.2. Treatment

A dewatering system is required to dry the sludge. The dewatering process highly influences

the dry matter content. A mechanical dewatering process using a belt press generates

calcium cake at approximately 55 to 60% dry solid content that has a good stability on land.

However, other systems might generate calcium cake with a dry matter content of 15 to

20%, which can cause storage problems (Gendebien et al., 2001).


PTEs

Metal (as PTEs) content from decarbonation sludge is presented in Table 3.49 and this data

is mainly for Belgium.


Table 3.49 Concentration of PTEs in decarbonation sludge in mg/kg dry weight (Gendebien

et al., 2001)

Metal Mean (min; max)

Cd 0.2 (0.07; 0.9)

Cr 11 (0.7; 26)

Cu 9 (0.6; 20)

Hg 0.06 (0.01; 0.16)

Ni 10 (0.8; 32)

Pb 16 (0.8; 36)

Zn 51 (9; 110)

Organic compounds

When water is pumped from canal or river from industrial zones it may contain

hydrocarbons (Gendebien et al., 2001). However, no information has been found on

concentrations of organic compounds in decarbonation sludge.

Pathogens

Due to the high pH of lime sludge, these sludges are expected to be pathogen free.

3.6.3. Waste lime and lime sludge


The two biggest producers of waste lime are cement manufacture and gas processing (Davis

and Rudd, 1999).

Waste lime from cement manufacture consists of cement kiln dust, which is a mixture of

calcium carbonate and calcium oxide. Other wastes might also be produced but in much

lower amounts (Davis and Rudd, 1999). Advantages for the landspreading of these wastes

are mostly due to their liming value. Neutralizing values typically range from 20 to 40% and

vary with the moisture content of the material (Davis and Rudd, 1999). Application rates for

these wastes are usually low and should be based on the neutralizing value. Soil pH should

be determined before landspreading since agricultural benefit is only achieved if the land

has lime requirements. Potential disadvantages may arise from the fact that cement kiln

dusts are likely to contain residues from the combustion of materials used to generate the

high temperatures required for the manufacturing process.

Waste lime from gas processing is produced from the production of acetylene gas. This

waste lime contains a high percentage of calcium hydroxide, which makes it a high quality

amendment material due to its high neutralizing value. Other nutrients and other

contaminants may be present in this waste but levels are dependent on the nature of the

production process (Davis and Rudd, 1999). The production of acetylene gas involves the

reaction of calcium carbide with water, with the production of lime as a by-product. Other


compounds are also produced, such as thiourea, for which consequences of landspreading is

unknown (Davis and Rudd, 1999).


PTEs

PTEs are present in liming materials and other inorganic fertilizers (e.g. nitrogen, phosphate,

potash). Reported levels of metals in waste lime and sludge lime from cement manufacture

and gas processing are compiled in Table 3.50.

Table 3.50 Concentration of PTEs in waste lime and lime sludge (mg/kg dry weight)

Metal

Lime sludge

Davis and Rudd, 1999 WRc, 2009

Mean (min; max) Mean (min; max) n

Cd 1.0 (<0.25; 8.0) <0.25 (<0.25; 2.47) 1.0 (0.37; 1.8) 6

Cr 10.7 (0.5; 31.5) 38.5 (<1.0; 614) 17.1 (7.95; 33) 6

Cu 12.7 (0.3; 46.0) 9.9 (0.4; 26.2) 46.8 (8.8; 180) 6

Hg 0.5 (0.5; 3.5) <0.01 (<0.01; 0.02) 0.18 (0.005; 0.5) 6

Ni 5.8 (0.1; 25.0) 3.0 (0.7; 8.5) 8.9 (7.6; 11.2) 4

Pb 145 (0.0; 1000) 1.2 (<1.0; 6.97) 29.7 (4.8; 89) 6

Zn 44.4 (0.2; 153.0) 35.9 (2.1; 270.0) 47.9 (17; 96) 6

Organic compounds

Depending on the manufacture process, cement kiln dusts are likely to contain residues

from the combustion of materials used to generate the high temperatures required. Some

cement manufacturers have recently started to use waste organic solvents as fuel sources

for these processes and thus organic residues may occur in kiln dust (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

Pathogens

Due to their high pH, ranging from 10 to above 12, lime sludge and waste lime is self-

disinfecting, as long as the pH is maintained. Therefore, these wastes are inherently

pathogen free.

3.6.4. Waste gypsum


Gypsum is a mineral (hydrated calcium sulphate) that is used in the preparation of plaster

and plaster-based building materials. Industrial gypsum is a by-product from the

manufacture of phosphoric acid (phosphogypsum), from the neutralisation of sulphuric acid

in many chemical processing industries (waste acid neutralisation gypsum), from the


capture of sulphur dioxide in the flue gases of fossil-fuel powered generators (flue gas

desulphurisation gypsum) and from salt extraction (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

Gypsum should be analysed for calcium, sulphur and potentially toxic elements. Depending

on the results, applications of gypsum as soil conditioner can be made to heavy land (high

clay content), or to sulphur deficient land in accordance to crop requirements for this

nutrient. Excessive additions of sulphur to land can lead to copper deficiency in livestock


The use of gypsum as a soil conditioner is well known. Gypsum is used to restore the

structure of saline sodic soils, especially those affected by flooding from seawater. Gypsum

is also beneficial in less extreme cases, where poorly structured clays can be improved on a

long term by additions of gypsum. There is little, if any, structural benefit from adding

gypsum to very light soils such as sands and loamy sands (Davis and Rudd, 1999). Gypsum

also contains large amounts of sulphur, which can be as high as 20% depending on the

purity of the product. Many agricultural soils are becoming sulphur deficient due to

reductions in atmospheric depositions of sulphur in acid rains and as such sulphur

containing fertilisers are increasingly being used (Davis and Rudd, 1999). Recently, following

the application of gypsum, unexpected improvements in crop yields occurred that may have

resulted from correction of sulphur deficiency that have not been previously diagnosed.

The presence of other plant nutrients is dependent on the process from which the material

is derived, and gypsum wastes can also contain quantities of phosphate that also have an

agronomic value.

Acid neutralisation gypsum

Large volumes of sulphuric acid waste are produced from a wide range of industrial

processes. The acid is used for the extraction of a range of chemical compounds, especially

for the extraction of mineral ores. As a consequence, the acid contains many different

contaminants derived from the primary raw materials that can be carried over in the

neutralisation process and therefore present in the gypsum produced.

Flue gas delphurisation gypsum

Flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) gypsum is produced primarily to remove sulphur dioxide in

flue gases. Benefits from the application of fuel gas sulphurisation are similar to other

sources of high purity gypsum. However, gypsum from this source does not usually contain

other beneficial nutrients.


PTEs

Contamination from metals is common in gypsum due to the use of strong acids used in

mineral based industries that will also extract metals (Gendebien et al., 2001). The majority

of FGD gypsum is produced from coal-fired power stations and thus contains a range of


metals as well as combustion products. Concentrations of PTEs in waste gypsum from

plasterboard are presented in Table 3.51. No data has been found for metals in acid

neutralisation gypsum.

Table 3.51 Concentration of PTEs in waste gypsum from plasterboard (mg/kg dry weight)

Metals

1Davis and Rudd, 1999 WRc, 2009

Mean (min; max) n

Cd 1.4 (0.1; 5.0) 0.02 1

Cr 51.0 (1.6; 466.0) 21.6 1

Cu 12.0 (1.2; 31.8) 4.41 1

Hg 0.1 (0.0; 0.2) 0.05 1

Ni 32.5 (1.0; 144.0) 10.58 1

Pb 53.0 (1.3; 404.0) 2.03 1

Zn 124.0 (2.4; 1075.0) 8.51 1

1- no data from where the gypsum is coming from

Organic compounds

FGD gypsum is produced to remove sulphur dioxide in flue gases. Therefore, other

contaminants might be adsorbed in the flue gases and the nature of these contaminants is

dependent on the fuel used in the combustion process. Gypsum derived from the burning of

other materials may contain complex organic compounds. However, a detailed description

of potential contaminants in gypsum is not possible due to the wide range of different

industries (Davis and Rudd, 1999). No data has been found for organic compounds in

gypsum.

Pathogens

As in the production of lime, heat is used to prepare plaster and therefore it is a disinfected

product and inherently free of pathogens (Davis and Rudd, 1999).


4. CONTAMINANT LOADINGS FROM APPLICATION OF MATERIALS ONTO

LAND

4.1. Introduction

The previous section only collated information on the occurrence of different contaminants

in different waste types. To quantify the importance of different waste types in term of

potential for soil contamination, information on the application rate of the individual waste

materials and concentrations of contaminants in the different materials are needed.

In this section, levels of contaminants from different materials that were compiled in the

previous chapter are used together with the application rates that are summarised in Table

4.1. The input from each contaminant to land (g/ha) for different materials is calculated by

multiplying the concentration of the contaminant (mg/kg) by the application rate

(tonnes/ha). Care needs to be taken when using concentrations of contaminants on a

dry/fresh weight basis with application rates on the same basis. If information on the dry

matter content is available then data on a fresh weight basis can be converted to dry weight

basis. For livestock manures, input of contaminants were based on the maximum

application rate of 250 Kg N/ha per year. Nitrogen equivalents for different livestock

manures were obtained from Fiona Nicholson (pers. communication).


Table 4.1 Application rates of materials to land used to calculate input of contaminants

Material Tonnes/ha Dry solids

Content (%)

Sewage sludge 6.5 DW NA

Livestock manures (based on an application rate of 250 kg N/ha)

Dairy slurry 69.4 FW 10

Dairy FYM 41.7 FW 25

Beef slurry 69.4 FW 10

Beef FYM 41.7 FW 25

Pig slurry 56.8 FW 6

Pig FYM 35.7 FW 25

Sheep FYM 35.7 FW 25

Layer manure 13.2 FW 35

Broiler litter 8.3 FW 60

Compost

Green compost 33 FW 60

Green/food compost 23 FW 60

Digestate 30 FW 3.5

Drinking water preparation sludge 102 FW NA

Paper waste

Primary treated 69 FW 42.6

Biologically treated 33 FW 27.5

Physico-chemically treated 69 FW 39.8

Abattoir waste

Blood 69 FW NA

Gut contents 55.5 FW NA

Wash waters 134 FW NA

Textile waste

Sludge 18 FW NA

Wool scourers 15 FW NA

Food and drinks

Beverages 150 FW NA

Baking 128 FW NA

Vegetable processing 158 FW NA

Animal food production- egg

processing 193 FW NA

Animal food production- dairy 132 FW NA

Meat processing - liquid 215 FW NA

Meat processing - sludge 143 FW NA

Waste lime and lime sludge 60 FW NA

Gypsum from plasterboard 20 FW NA

Dredgings 753 FW 48

FYM – farmyard manure

DW – dry weight

FW – fresh weight


For each contaminant, the loading to soils from different materials for which data is

available is presented in column graphs for comparison. Different classes of materials are

represented by different colours. At the end of each contaminant section a discussion is

presented.

At the end of this chapter, a summary table is presented showing the relevance of

contaminants for each material.

4.2. Contaminants

4.2.1. PTEs

In Figure 4.1, the total metal content, i.e. sum of Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn and Hg, loading from

materials that are applied to land is shown.

Figure 4.1 Total metal input following the application of different materials

Individual PTEs loading from different materials and respective sources are presented for

cadmium (Fig. 4.2), chromium (Fig. 4.3), copper (Fig. 4.4), nickel (Fig. 4.5), lead (Fig. 4.6), zinc

(Fig. 4.7), and mercury (Fig. 4.8).


The input of PTEs following the application of dredging to soils is separately considered

since concentrations of PTEs are much higher than inputs from any other materials (Fig 4.9).

Input of PTEs following application of sewage sludge is presented in the same graph for

comparison.

At the end of this section, a summary table (Table 4.9) of heavy metal input following the

application of different materials to land and comparison with input from sewage sludge is

presented.

Figure 4.2 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Cadmium


Figure 4.3 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Chromium

Figure 4.4 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Copper


Figure 4.5 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Nickel

Figure 4.6 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Lead


Figure 4.7 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Zinc

Figure 4.8 Loading in g/ha following application of different materials to soils - Mercury


Figure 4.9 PTEs loading in g/ha following application of dredgings or sewage sludge to

soils

Discussion

With the exception of dredgings, when considering the total input of PTEs, loading following

the application of sewage sludge is still greater than any other material. A similar loading of

PTEs is obtained following the application of composts, drinking water preparation sludge

and meat processing liquid (Figure 4.1). Loadings of PTEs following the application of

dredging are greater for all individual or total amount of metals than inputs from any other

materials (Figure 4.9).

When considering individual PTEs, with the exception of copper and zinc in pig slurry and

farmyard manure, livestock manures represent a much lower input of metals than sewage

sludge. Copper and zinc loading from pig slurry and farmyard manure is greater than for the

other livestock manures but still represent a lower input than sewage sludge. Loading of

copper similar to sewage sludge loadings are found following application of biologically

treated paper waste, egg and meat processing (Figure 4.4). With the exception for dredging,

chromium and zinc inputs from sewage sludge are greater than for any other material

(Figures 4.3 and 4.7).

With the exception for lead, compost loadings of PTEs are very similar to inputs from

sewage sludge. Input of lead is much higher from composts than from sewage sludge.

Greater inputs of nickel are found for meat processing (liquid and sludge), egg processing

and drinking water preparation sludge. Cadmium inputs are greater for waste lime and lime

sludge, green compost, and food and drink wastes than loadings from sewage sludge

application. Loadings of mercury are unknown for a range of materials. Nevertheless, inputs

following the application of gypsum from plasterboard are greater than inputs from sewage

sludge. Similar mercury inputs are from green composts and food and drinks wastes (Table

4.9).


Table 4.2 Heavy metal summary input following the application of different materials to

land. Comparison with sewage sludge inputs.

Material Cd Cr Cu Ni Pb Zn Hg SUM Sewage sludge heavy metal mean

loading (g/ha) 10 680 2025 240 900 4960 6.7 8820

Livestock manures Dairy slurry << << < << << << NA << Dairy FYM << << << << << << NA << Beef slurry << << << << << << NA << Beef FYM << << << << << << NA <<

Pig slurry << << < << << < NA <

Pig FYM < << < << << < NA < Sheep FYM << << << << << << NA << Layer manure << << << << << << NA << Broiler litter << << << << << << NA <<

Compost

Green compost > < < = >> < = =

Green/food compost = < < = >> < < = Digestate << << << << << << NA <<

Drinking water preparation sludge > < < >> < < < = Paper waste

Primary treated NA < < << << << NA < Biologically treated = < = = < < NA < Physico-chemicallly treated NA < < << << < NA <

Abattoir waste Blood = << < = << << << << Gut contents << << << << << << << << Wash waters << << << << << << << <<

Textile waste Sludge << << << << << < << < Wool scourers << << << << << < << <

Food and drinks Beverages >> << << < << << = << Baking >> << << = << << = <<

Vegetable processing >> < < > << << = < Animal food production- egg

processing >> << = >> << << << <

Animal food production- dairy = << << < << << < <<

Meat processing - liquid >> = = >> << < < = Meat processing - sludge >> < < >> << << < <

Waste lime and lime sludge >> < << = << << << < Gypsum from plasterboard << < << << << << >> << Dredgings >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>

<< much lower

< lower

= similar

> higher

>> much higher



With the exception of selected classes of organic compounds in sewage sludge, data on

organic compounds in materials applied to land is very scarce. In some cases a sum of

organic compounds concentrations are given, whereas in others only concentrations for

individual compounds are available (e.g. PAHs). Some organic contaminants are only

relevant for some materials (e.g. veterinary medicines are only relevant for livestock

manures). An important factor also to be taken into account is that the usage of organic

compounds such as PAHs and PCBs has significantly decreased over the last decades and

PCBs have been banned. Therefore, the use of older data is not likely to be relevant today.

Because of these factors, data on contaminants from which inputs can be quantitatively

comparable from different wastes is only available for PAHs and PCBs. Therefore, organic

compounds loading from different materials and respective sources are only discussed for

PAHs (Figures 4.10 and 4.11, Table 4.10) and PCBs (Figures 4.12 and 4.13, Table 4.11). At the

end of this section a general discussion on the persistence of organic contaminants is

presented and then a more detailed discussion on organic compounds in sewage sludge,

composts and livestock manures is also presented.

In Figure 4.10, loading of a sum of 16 PAHs following the application of sewage sludge, pulp

and paper sludge and composts compliant with PAS 100 (BSI, 2005) are presented. Loadings

of PAHs are greater from the application of sewage sludge than from the application of

composts or paper sludge.

Figure 4.10 PAH loading in g/ha following application of materials to soils

* value shown represent maximum mean PAH

For other materials, such as abattoir waste, textile waste and food and drink sludge, only

applications based on a fresh weight basis are available, whereas concentrations of PAHs

are on a dry matter basis. Also for all these materials concentrations are for an individual

*


compound and not for a sum of PAHs. Nevertheless, loadings of PAHs for these materials

can still be compared but it is not possible to compare with inputs from sewage sludge and

composts.

Figure 4.11 PAH loading in g/ha following application of materials to soils

Note: application rates for abattoir waste, textile and food drink sludge are on a fresh weigh

basis. If corrected for a dry weight basis values would be lower *Maximum loading for one PAH (benzo(a)pyrene)

**Results only available for one PAH (fluoranthene):

- textile sludge and food and drink sludge values represent mean

- textile - wool scourers value represent maximum value

In Figure 4.12, loading of a sum of 7 PCBs following the application of sewage sludge and

composts compliant with PAS 100 (BSI, 2005) are presented. Loadings of PCBs are greater

from the application of composts than from the application of sewage sludge.

*

** **

**


Figure 4.12 PCBs loading in mg/ha following application of different materials to soils

As for the quantification of PAHs in different materials, for abattoir waste, textile waste and

food and drink sludge, only applications based on a fresh weight basis are available,

whereas concentrations of PCBs are on a dry matter basis. Nevertheless, loadings of PCBs

for these materials can still be compared but it is not possible to compare with inputs from

sewage sludge and composts (Figure 4.13).

Figure 4.13 PCB loading in mg/ha following application of materials to soils

Note: application rate for abattoir waste, textile and food drink sludge are on a

fresh weigh basis. If corrected for a dry weight basis values would be lower

(depends of dry matter content) * Maximum loading for PCBs

*


4.2.3. Pathogens

Concentrations of pathogens in different material types that are applied to land are not

available. Nevertheless, the likelihood of pathogens in different materials can be assessed

and is presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Qualitative assessment of pathogens levels in materials applied to land

Material type Pathogens level Controls applied Sewage sludge Unlikely Yes (legislation)

Septic tank sludge High (if not treated) No

Livestock manures High (if not treated) No

Compost Low Yes (voluntary)

Digestate Low Yes (voluntary)

Pulp and paper industry sludge Unlikely No

Waste wood, bark and other plant material Low No

Dredging from inland waters Low No

Abattoir wastes Medium No

Textile waste Unlikely No

Tannery and leather waste Unlikely No

Waste from food and drinks preparation Low No

Waste from chemical and pharmaceutical

manufacture Unlikely No

Waste lime and lime sludge Unlikely No

Waste gypsum Unlikely No

Decarbonation sludge Low No

Drinking water production sludge Possible No

Discussion

For most other contaminants and waste types, data on concentrations are limited do it is

not possible to establish, in a quantitative way, the likely input rates to land. However, for

many contaminants, qualitative information that can be used to provide a guide as to which

waste material type is most important for a particular contaminant is available. For

example, it is known that veterinary medicines are only used in animal farming and that the

main route of input to land will be via the application of manure or slurry to land. The

results of this more qualitative assessment are presented in Table 4.4.


Table 4.4 Summary of the input of contaminants following the application of different wastes

Material

Contaminants

Metals POPs Bulk industrial and

domestic chemicals Pesticides

Human

pharmaceuticals

Veterinary

medicines

Biocides

and PCPs Pathogens

Sewage sludge ++ ++ + + ++ NR ++ unlikely

Septic tank sludge ++ + + + ++ NR ++ ++ (if untreated)

Livestock manures + + + + NR ++ NR ++ (if untreated)

Compost + + + + NR NR NR + (low)

Digestate + + + + NR NR NR + (low)

Pulp and paper industry sludge + + + NR NR NR + unlikely

Waste wood, bark and other plant

material + + + + NR NR + + (low)

Dredgings ++ ++ ++ + + + + + (low)

Abattoir waste + + + + NR + NR + (medium)

Textile waste + + + + NR NR + unlikely

Tannery and leather sludge + + + + NR NR + unlikely

Waste from food and drinks

preparation + + + NR NR NR NR + (low)

Waste from chemical and

pharmaceutical manufacture + + + NR + + + unlikely

Waste lime and lime sludge + + + NR NR NR NR unlikely

Waste gypsum + + + NR NR NR NR unlikely

Decarbonation sludge + + + NR NR NR NR + (low)

Drinking water preparation sludge + + + NR NR NR NR possible

NR – not relevant

+ relevant

++ one of the major sources


5. IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE STRATEGIES TO REDUCE

CONTAMINATION OF MATERIALS SPREAD TO LAND

5.1. Introduction and approach used

In this section, the aim is to identify potential upstream control measures for reducing

contaminants in waste streams that can be landspread. This was achieved by:

1. Identifying major sources for contaminants in materials that are landspread using

information from the previous section (section 4).

2. Identifying upstream control measures that would reduce contamination of the

waste streams.

3. Using information from previous sections to try to identify potential treatments to

eliminate contaminants from waste streams.

4. Identifying the most effective measures from 2 for reducing the levels of

contaminants in the waste streams without compromising the benefits to soil.

Effective measures are those that are practical, do not cause further contamination or

inhibition of treatments, and that might be applied as a control measure at the source to

reduce levels of contaminants in the final material and thus minimise the need for

treatment.

In order to identify strategies to reduce inputs of contaminants, eleven waste streams were

identified and studied:

1. Sewage sludge

2. Livestock manure

3. Municipal solid waste

4. Paper and pulp waste

5. Wood, bark and other plant waste

6. Dredging from inland waters

7. Abattoir waste

8. Textile industry waste

9. Tannery and leather waste

10. Waste from food and drinks preparation

11. Waste from basic organic chemical and pharmaceutical companies

Information was gathered for each production process and the waste generated by it. This

was translated into ‘the waste production processes’. The processes for each waste stream

are briefly described and illustrated with a diagram to show the path of the contaminants to

land. The diagrams divide into 5 sections:

� Contaminants – all contaminant groups are shown and those relevant to the

waste type are filled in white.

� Source – these are the raw materials or entry stages into the waste stream.

� Production – these are the sludges resulting from processes in the

manufacturing system.


� Processing – are the post manufacturing system treatments to turn the waste

product or sludge into a useable biosolid for land application, e.g. composting.

� Use – landspreading.

A literature review was undertaken to identify techniques to eliminate, reduce, or treat

contaminants found in the processes. Where information was unavailable, the opinion and

judgment of this report’s authors has been used to suggest a control measure. Traces of all

contaminants are possible in all waste streams. However, these might be so small that they

are not of concern in the final material.

The practicality and effectiveness for each upstream control measure has been judged from

low to high. Table 5.1 shows a description and examples of judgments made.

Table 5.1 Judgment for practicality and effectiveness

Practicality Description Example

Low Non-practical Several years of research needed

Medium Possible to apply Not too much effort to apply

High Easy to apply Already available

Effectiveness Description Example

Low Not very effective Represents only small proportion of contamination

Medium Effective Some reduction of contamination

High Very effective Substitution of chemicals

At the end of each waste stream section, contaminants of concern for each contaminant

type and their major source have been included and possible upstream control measures

have been proposed. In these tables the strategies judged most effective for each

contaminant are presented in bold. The judgement was made from the available

information in previous sections and the following statements:

1. No contamination is most preferable (taking the view that over long periods of time

persistent contaminants accumulate even if only applied in small quantities).

2. The elimination and substitution of persistent contaminants at the source is more

efficient than removing them later in the process.

3. No measure should cause further contamination or inhibit later treatments.

4. No measure should be excessively expensive or complex.


5.2. Sewage Sludge Sewage sludge is the residue collected following treatment of waste water. Sewage derives

from domestic sources and small businesses, runoff, diffuse sources and storm drain

overflow, and industry treated waste. Figure 5.1 illustrates the path of contaminants from

sewage sludge to land. The nature of sewage treatment concentrates contaminants into the

sludge so that the effluent can be released safely into water bodies and is regulated by the

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (EC, 1991b).

Figure 5.1 Sewage sludge waste stream


5.2.1.1. Sources

The presence of PTEs in sludge is due to domestic, road-runoff and industrial inputs to the

urban wastewater collection systems (IC Consultants, 2001). Major sources of emission of

PTEs to urban wastewater have usually been from industrial sources (IC Consultants, 2001).

However, more stringent controls to industry have significantly reduced the levels of PTEs

into urban wastewater (Gendebien et al., 1999). Domestic sources of PTEs are presented in

Tables 5.2 and 5.3.

Source

Production

Use

Domestic Urban runoff

Land Application

Primary Treatment

Processing

Compost Anaerobic digestion

Advanced treatments

Commercial

Contaminant

PT

Es


Bul

k C

hem

ical

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pe

rson

al

care

pr

oduc

ts

Pat

hoge

n

PO

Ps

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Sludge

Secondary Treatment

Tertiary Treatment


Domestic sources for PTEs

In domestic wastewater, faeces contribute 60 to 70% of the load of Cd, Zn, Cu and Ni and

above 20% of the input of these metals are from mixed water from domestic and industrial

sources. Major sources of metals in faeces are from food products and supplements, since

metals and other elements may enter the food chain from growth and harvesting through to

storage and processing. Furthermore, certain food groups can accumulate some elements.

For example, fish and shellfish are known to accumulate As and Hg, while cereals can

accumulate Cd (FSA, 2004). The other main sources of metals in domestic wastewater are

from personal care products, pharmaceuticals, cleaning products and liquid wastes. The

main source of Cu in hard water areas is from plumbing, contributing more than 50% of the

Cu load and Pb inputs equivalent to 25% of the total load of this element have been

reported in districts with extensive networks of Pb pipework for water conveyance (IC

Consultants, 2001).

Table 5.2 Domestic sources of metals/elements in wastewater (IC Consultants, 2001)

Metal/element Sources

Arsenic

Arsenic inputs come from natural background sources and from household products such as

washing products, medicines, garden products, wood preservatives, old paints and pigments

Arsenic is present mainly as DMAA (dimethylarsinic acid) and as As (III) (arsenite) in urban

effluents and sewage sludge (Carbonell-Barrachina et.al., 2000).

Cadmium

Cadmium is mainly found in rechargeable batteries for domestic use (Ni-Cd batteries), in paints

and in photography. The main sources in urban wastewater are from a wide range of sources such

as food products, bodycare products, detergents and storm water. In food products the main

source of Cd is likely to be the use of phosphate fertilizers.

Copper

Major sources of copper are from corrosion and leaching of plumbing, fungicides (cuprous

chloride), pigments, wood preservatives, larvicides (copper acetoarsenite) and antifouling paints.

Lead

Major source for lead is from old lead piping in the water distribution system. It can also be found

in cosmetics, glazes on ceramic dishes and porcelain (now banned in glazes), crystal glass, solder,

pool cue chalk (as carbonate), and in old paint pigments (as oxides, carbonates). Lead can also be

found in wines, from lead-tin capsules used on bottles and from old wine processing installations.

Mercury

Most mercury compounds and uses are now banned with the exception of mercury being used in

thermometers in some EU countries and dental amalgams. Mercury can still be found as an

additive in old paints and marine antifouling (mercuric arsenate), in old pesticides (mercuric

chloride in fungicides, insecticides), in wood preservatives (mercuric chloride), in embalming fluids

(mercuric chloride), in germicidal soaps and antibacterial products (mercuric chloride and

mercuric cyanide), as mercury-silver tin alloys and for “silver mirrors”.

Nickel Can be found in rechargeable batteries (Ni-Cd), protective coatings, in alloys used in food

processing and sanitary installations.

Selenium Selenium comes from food products and food supplements, shampoos and other cosmetics, old

paints and pigments.

Silver Originates mainly from small scale photography, household products such as polishes, and

domestic water treatment devices.

Zinc

Zinc input are from corrosion and leaching of plumbing, water-proofing products (zinc formate,

zinc oxide), anti-pest products (zinc arsenate - in insecticides, zinc dithioamine as fungicide, rat

poison, rabbit and deer repellents, zinc fluorosilicate as anti-moth agent), wood preservatives (as

zinc arsenate), deodorants and cosmetics (zinc chloride and zinc oxide), medicines and ointments

(zinc chloride and oxide as astringent and antiseptic, zinc formate as antiseptic), paints and

pigments (zinc oxide and carbonate), colouring agent in various formulations (zinc oxide), a UV

absorbent agent in various formulations (zinc oxide), "health supplements" (as zinc ascorbate or

zinc oxide).


The main domestic sources of potentially toxic elements in wastewater were estimated by

WRc (1994) to be (in order of importance):

Cadmium: faeces > bath water > laundry > tap water > kitchen

Chromium: laundry > kitchen > faeces > bath water > tap water

Copper: faeces > plumbing >tap water > laundry > kitchen

Lead: plumbing > bath water > tap water > laundry > faeces > kitchen

Nickel: faeces > bath water > laundry > tap water > kitchen

Zinc: faeces > plumbing > tap water > laundry > kitchen.

In terms of contributions to domestic wastewater, household washing products contributed

73% of As, 6.5% of Cd, 5.6% of Cr, and 3.2% of Ni (Jenkins and Russel, 1994). In this same

study, household washing products contributed for 0.5% or less for Hg, Ag, Pb, Cu and Zn.

The source of As was also found to be the phosphate used in some of these products

(Jenkins and Russel, 1994).

Table 5.3 Domestic sources of potentially toxic elements in urban wastewater (modified

from Lester, 1987 and WRc, 1994 as cited in IC Consultants, 2001)

Product type Ag As Cd Co Cr Cu Hg Ni Pb Se Zn

Amalgam fillings and thermometers x

Cleaning products x x

Cosmetics, shampoos x x x x x x x

Disinfectants x

Fire extinguishers x

Fuels x x x x

Inks x x

Lubricants x x x

Medicines and ointments x x x x x

Health supplements x x x x x

Food products x x x x x

Oils and lubricants x x x x

Paints and pigments x x x x x x x x x x

Photographic (hobby) x x x

Polish x x x

Pesticides and gardening products x x x x x

Washing powders x x x

Wood preservatives x x x

Other sources

Faeces and urine x x x x x x x x x

Tap water x x x x x

Water treatment and heating systems x x x x x

In a study in Sweden, domestic and some industrial sources of metals to a wastewater

treatment plant were investigated and results showed that it was possible to identify the

sources for Cu and Zn, as well as for Ni and Hg (70% found). Other metal sources are not

well understood or underestimated (Cd 60%, Pb 50%, Cr 20% known; Sörme and Lagerkvist,

2002). In this same study, the major sources of Cu were tap water and roof runoff; the

major sources for Zn were galvanised material and car washes; the major sources for Ni

were chemicals used in sewage treatment plants and drinking water itself; and finally the


major source for Hg was the amalgam in teeth. For Pb, Cr, and Cd, where sources were

poorly understood, the major source was car washes (Sörme and Lagerkvist, 2002).

Commercial sources of PTEs

Commercial sources of PTEs are summarised in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Industrial sources of metals/elements in wastewater (IC Consultants, 2001)

Metals/elements Sources

Cadmium Cadmium can originate from laundrettes, small electroplating and coating shops, plastic

manufacture, and is also used in alloys, solders, pigments, enamels, paints, photography,

batteries, glazes, artisanal shops, engraving and car repair shops.

Chromium Chromium is present in alloys and is discharged from diffuse sources and products such as

preservatives, dying, and tanning activities. Chromium III is used as a tanning agent in leather

processing. Chromium IV is now restricted with few commercial sources.

Copper Copper is used in electronics, plating, paper, textile, rubber, fungicides, printing, plastic, and

brass and other alloy industries. It can also be emitted from various small commercial

activities and warehouses, as well as buildings with commercial heating systems.

Lead Lead is used as fuel additive that has now been almost banned in the EU. It is also used in

batteries, pigments, solder, roofing, cable covering, lead jointed waste pipes and PVC pipes

(as an impurity), ammunition, chimney cases, fishing weights yacht keels and other sources.

Mercury

Mercury is used in the production of electrical equipment and also as a catalyst in chlor-alkali

processes for chlorine and caustic soda production. Main sources in effluents are from dental

practices, clinical thermometers, glass mirrors, electrical equipment and traces in

disinfectant products (bleach) and caustic soda solutions.

Zinc

Zinc is used in brass and bronze, alloy production, galvanization processes, tyres, batteries,

paints, plastics, rubber, fungicides, paper, textiles, taxidermy and embalming fluid (zinc

chloride), building materials and special cements (zinc oxide, zinc fluorosilicate), dentistry

(zinc oxide), and also in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

5.2.1.2. Upstream control measures

In Section 4, input for Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn following sewage sludge application to soils were

more significant than input for other metals. Therefore, sources for these metals in sewage

sludge are used to identify potential upstream control measures. With the exception of

dredging, input for Cr and Zn to soils from the application of sewage sludge are higher than

for any other material. Faeces contribute 60 to 70% of the load of Cd, Zn, Cu and Ni; and are

therefore a major source for these metals in sewage sludge. Another source for Cu and Zn is

from the corrosion and leaching of pipework, which is also the major source for Pb. For Cr,

major domestic sources in sewage sludge have been from household washing products

(5.6%) and faeces, whereas major commercial sources are from car washes (20%), the use of

chromium as preservative, and from dying and tanning activities.

During sewage treatment, the relative distribution of individual PTEs in the treated effluent

and in the sludge indicated that Mn and Cu (>70%) mainly accumulate in the sludge,

whereas 47-63% of Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni and Zn remain in the treated effluent (Karvelas et al.,

2003).


Potential control measures at the source for these metals are presented below.

� Reducing metal levels in health supplements. A more rigorous study on the benefits

of essential and other minerals in supplements would add clarity in this area. For

example, Cr is included in health supplements but there is no biochemical evidence

for a physiological function (Stearns, 2000). However, reducing levels of metals in

supplements is an impractical approach since these compounds are added because

they are trace elements. Also, health supplements are likely to represent only a small

proportion of inputs for these metals to sludge.

� To reduce inputs of Zn, Cu and Pb to wastewater from the corrosion and leaching of

plumbing, other materials could be used. Old pipework, which is responsible for the

input of Pb to wastewater, or Cu and Zn use in plumbing (e.g. brass) could be

replaced with other materials such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or chlorinated

polyvinyl chloride (CPVC; e.g. Flowguard or PlatinumXCELL or other plastic.

Advantages for using plastic are the much cheaper costs and that it is easier to

install, but these are less durable than copper fittings. Replacement of old pipework

would take sometime to achieve, however, inputs of these metals to sewage sludge

would significantly decrease.

� Since car washes are responsible for 20% of Cr inputs into wastewater treatment

plants, granular activated carbon (GAC) filters are a water treatment option that may

lead to significant reductions in the levels of Cr in sewage sludge.

� To educate the public to choose products which are more environmentally friendly.

This can be done using ecolabelling in products. A good example is the EU Ecolabel,

which is a voluntary scheme first established in 1992, and now reviewed in 2009,

that encourage businesses to market products and services that are kinder to the

environment (EC, 2009). Products and services awarded the Ecolabel carry the

flower logo that allows consumers to identify them easily. Public awareness

campaigning would increase the use of these products and services.

� More regulation of the industry output, especially for the automotive, construction,

and the electronics industry, such as to limit the metal content in finished products

and applying legislation to achieve this. However, the practicality of this approach

would be low since it would take a long time to achieve.

� Research into the development of new substitute materials for metals. Some

examples are further discussed within this section for some industries. However, the

practicality of this approach would be low since it would take a long time to achieve

and there is the need of further research.

5.2.1.3. Treatment

Electro remediation is a method that was developed for the removal of metals from soils.

The method is based on the application of a direct-current electric field to soil to remove

certain contaminants (e.g. metals). Ottosen et al. (2007) successfully applied this method for

the removal of Cd in wastewater sludge.



5.2.2.1. Sources

Inputs of persistent organic pollutants to sewage sludge now principally reflect (ADAS,

Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005):

� Background inputs to the sewer from normal dietary sources;

� Background inputs by atmospheric deposition due to remobilisation/volatilisation

from soil and cycling in the environment (e.g. PCBs and PAHs);

� Atmospheric deposition from waste incineration (e.g. PCDD/Fs);

� Atmospheric deposition from domestic combustion of coal;

� Biodegradation during sludge treatment; and

� Volatile solids destruction during sludge treatment.

Many widely used household products that contain hazardous chemicals, including cleaning

products, laundry detergents, disinfectants, pesticides, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals and

personal care products, are often present in the effluents treated by sewage treatment

plants.

Sources of organic compounds in sewage sludge are presented in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Sources of organic contaminants in sewage sludge Organic compound Sources

PAHs The major source of PAH emissions are road transport combustion that contributed for 58% of

the emissions in 2007 (NAEI, 2009). Domestic and other industrial combustions were the

second major sources of emissions in the same year (NAEI, 2009).

PCBs Atmospheric deposition onto paved surfaces followed by runoff.

Their use has been banned since the late 1970s.

PCDD/Fs The most likely source of PCDD/Fs in sludge is atmospheric deposition onto roads followed by

transport in runoff to the water system. However, Horstmann and McLachlan (1994) have

shown that these contaminants are transferred from textiles to human skin during wearing

and therefore were present in shower water and washed out from textiles during washing.

LAS LAS are widely used anionic surfactants in detergents and cleaning products (Erhardt and

Prüeß, 2001)

NPE NPE are extensively used as surfactants in hygienic products, cosmetics, cleaning products, and

in emulsifications of paints and pesticides (Erhardt and Prüeß, 2001)

Pentachlorophenol The main source of pentachlorophenol is from wastewater collection systems from industrial

releases, and also diffuse inputs from surface water runoff.

Human

pharmaceuticals

Following administration, pharmaceuticals are not completely absorbed and are excreted in

urine and faeces to sewage treatment, where they are not completely eliminated and are

discharged in effluents or in sewage sludge. Improper disposal of drugs might also be a source

for these compounds in sludge.

Pesticides Especially organochlorines. However, the implications for soil quality mainly arise from direct

applications of pesticides to crops and soils and from the application of animal manures rather

than from inputs via agricultural application of sewage sludge. Biocides and PCPs They are widely used in domestic products such as clothing, furnishings and hygiene products.

In Table 5.6, common additives used in a range of personal care products are also

presented.


Table 5.6 Description of common additives in a range of personal care products (Xia et al.,

2005) Common additive Active compound Description

Fragrances

- Musk ketone

- Musk xylene

- Galaxolide (HHCB)

- Tonalide (AHTN)

- Phantolide (AHMI)

- Traseolide (ATII)

- Celestolide (ADBI)

- Cashmeran (DPMI)

Synthetic musks in personal care products are

distributed the following way:

- 41% in candles, air fresheners and aroma therapy

- 25% in perfumes, cosmetics and toiletries

- 34% in soaps, shampoos, and detergents

(Fragranced Products information network, 2004)

Flame retardants

- Tetrabromobisphenol A

- Polybrominated diphenylether

(PBDEs)

- Polybrominated biphenyl

- Pentabromochloro-cyclohexane

- Hexabromocyclodocdecane

- Pentabromotoluene

- Tetrabromophtalic anhydride

- Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate

Used as additive in flexible polyurethane foam, textile

coatings, and coatings for furniture, in plastics for

electrical and electronic equipment, wire, in cable

insulation and electrical connectors, automobiles, and

construction and building materials (Bromine Science

and Environmental Forum, 2004). Distribution of the

1.14 million tons Mg global consumption of flame

retardants in 1998:

-Al-, Mg-, and N-based 56%, Br-based = 23%, P-based =

15%, Cl-based = 6%

Disinfectants,

antiseptics

and pesticides

Triclosan (2,4,4_-trichloro-2_-

hydroxy diphenyl ether)

Bactericide added in detergents, dishwashing

detergents, laundry soaps, deodorants, cosmetics,

lotions, creams, toothpastes and mouthwashes,

footwear, and plastic wear. It interferes with an enzyme

crucial to the growth of bacteria.

Biphenylol

Bactericide and virucide added in dishwashing

detergents, soaps, general surface disinfectants in

hospitals, nursing homes, veterinary hospitals,

commercial laundries, barbershops, and food processing

plants. It is used to sterilize hospital and veterinary

equipment.

Chlorophene Bactericide and fungicide added in disinfectant solutions

and soaps.

DEET (N,N-diethyltoluamide) Pesticide added in insect repellant.

Butylparaben (alkyl-p-

hydroxybenzoates)

Fungicide added in cosmetics, toiletries,

and food.

Surfactants

alkylphenol poliethoxylates

(usually branched nonyl or octyl) Nonionic surfactants added in detergents.

Sodium

Dodecylbenzenesulfonate Ionic surfactants added in detergents.

Benzalkonium chloride Ionic surfactants added in detergents, preservative and

disinfectant in contact lens solutions.


As for PTEs, the most efficient way to avoid contamination of the sludge with organic

compounds would be to reduce their usage at the source.

Atmospheric deposition onto paved surfaces followed by runoff is the major source of PCBs

and PCDD/Fs to wastewater. Since emissions controls are already in place (e.g. PCBs have


been banned) from the main point sources for these organic contaminants and that the

main source is from atmospheric deposition, there is little scope to further reduce the

inputs of these substances to wastewater or sludge at the source (IC Consultants, 2001).

However, during transportation of atmospheric deposits (i.e. runoff), there is a scope to

reduce transfer of contaminants into wastewater. To increase To increase water quality

from road-runoff some Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been tested by the US

Geological Survey (Smith, 2002). One of these BMPs was a deep sumped hooded catch basin

to reduce sediment and associated constituents from highway runoff. Results have shown a

reduction of around 10% for PAHs.

Potential measures that can be applied at the source to reduce levels of organic

contaminants in sludge are presented below.

� Pharmaceutical compounds are not completely eliminated during sewage treatment

and, therefore, are present in sewage sludge. Upstream control measures to reduce

pharmaceutical compounds at the source might be:

� Drug take back schemes of unused/expired medication are a key mechanism

for reducing the discharge of pharmaceuticals to wastewaters. Although the

improper disposal of unused/expired pharmaceuticals is believed to be

minor, drug take back schemes are still considered important. The practicality

and effectiveness for this approach are high since these schemes are already

available. These can be more successful with high levels of public awareness

and education on the environmental impacts of the disposal of

unused/expired drugs (Clark et al., 2008).

� Risk classification schemes could be used to identify to doctors and general

public which pharmaceuticals pose the greatest environmental risk. The aim

is that doctors prescribe drugs of low environmental risk. Such a classification

scheme was recently developed and introduced in Sweden (Stockholms Läns

landsting, 2006). Therefore, a target disposal advice for the less

environmentally safe drugs could possibly reduce levels discharged in the

environment. However, doctors are most likely to prescribe more efficacious

treatments, regardless of the environmental impact.

� Incentivise might be given to the pharmaceutical companies to make more

benign-by-design drugs (e.g. designed to be biodegradable) and the adoption

of green chemistry methods and technologies (Clark et al., 2008). These

technologies range from novel green catalytic methods, to reduction in

solvent use, waste minimization and elimination of hazardous agents (Clark

et al., 2008). On a long-term this approach would significantly reduce

pharmaceuticals in sludge, however, the practicality of this approach at

present is low.

� Promotion of greener drugs so that providers and consumers can make an

informed choice (e.g. hospitals/national and local authorities; Clark et al.,

2008). This could be a practical and effective approach. However, greener

drugs are still under research and several years are needed for their

development.

� In household toilets, urine source separation might be efficient in reducing

amounts of pharmaceuticals in wastewater. Pharmaceutical partition


between urine and faeces; however, they are expected to be released at

higher concentrations in urine. The urine source separation is a new

technology that diverts faeces from urine by the use of separate outlet

named NoMix-technology. Therefore, by using the NoMix technology,

amounts of pharmaceuticals could be greatly reduced in wastewaters.

Sweden is the pioneer country using the NoMix-technology that is now being

studied in 38 Nomix-projects in seven Northern and Central European

countries (Lienert and Larsen, 2010). A global application of this technology is

not practical at present. However, locally it could be applied to some

institutions (e.g. hospitals and nursing homes). This approach would be very

effective in reducing amounts of pharmaceuticals in wastewaters.

� Alter prescription practices. For example, the prescription of starter packs at

the beginning of the treatment and reviewing the patient consumption over

time would be likely to reduce amounts of pharmaceuticals prescribed. This

approach would be effective on the amount of pharmaceuticals that require

disposal.

� The new legislation enforced in 2007 and known as REACh (Registration, Evaluation

and Authorization of Chemicals) could help reducing levels of organic compounds in

sludge (EC, 2006) and controls the manufacture, marketing and use of chemicals

around Europe and will require the chemicals industry to provide health and safety

information as well as environmental risks on the chemicals produced. This

legislation will identify chemicals that can pose an environmental risk and these will

need to be substituted by less harmful chemicals since they will not be allowed in

the market. On a long term, this will be an effective approach but in practice it will

take a number of years to achieve.

� Some organic contaminants used in household products can be substituted for less

harmful substances (e.g. surfactants in detergents can be substituted by

biodegradable substances such as alcohol ethoxilates). Some examples that might be

used for reducing levels of organic compounds in sludge are presented below.

� While the legislation is gradually being enforced, some pressure can be

applied to the industry for the substitution of the most harmful substances.

� Consumer awareness:, Greenpeace published a document titled “Cleaning up

our chemical homes- Changing the market to supply toxic-free products” to

try to provide information to consumers about the hazardous substances that

may be present in products, and to encourage manufacturers to substitute

hazardous substances with safer alternatives (Greenpeace, 2007). Products

from different companies, including well known brands, were categorised

green (no hazardous chemicals used), amber or red according to the

hazardous chemicals their products would contain. A chemical database was

launched targeting a specific list of hazardous chemicals, including

phthalates, synthetic musks, brominated flame retardants, organotins and

nonylphenols, and it has been shown that substitution of these substances by

safer chemicals is possible in a range of different industries (Greenpeace,

2007).


� The ecolabelling of products to influence the consumer to choose less

harmful products can greatly reduce levels of these chemicals in sludge. A

successful example occurred in Sweden, where the market shares for

ecolabelled detergents increased by 95%. This was only achieved with

extensive public awareness campaigning.

5.2.2.3. Treatment

A screening study performed by Bowen et al (2003) showed that some Priority Substances

are present at measurable concentrations. Due to the volatile characteristic of these

compounds, they are expected to be significantly reduced during standard sewage

treatment (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).

Some organic contaminants are removed to the sludge during aerobic wastewater

treatment. This is the case for detergent residues (e.g. nonylphenol), surfactants (e.g. LAS),

and plasticizing agents (e.g. DEHP). Some organic compounds might be removed by

biodegradation during anaerobic digestion, but in general the removal achieved is in the

range of 15 to 35%. Aerobic composting and thermophilic digestion processes are usually

more effective for degradation of organic contaminants when compared to mesophilic

anaerobic digestion (e.g. LAS and NPE; IC Consultants, 2001). In another study, Wetzig

(2008) investigated conventional wastewater treatment including coagulation-flocculation

and flotation, anaerobic digestion, irrigation and soil passage, a membrane bioreactor, and

ozonation for the removal of seven representative pharmaceuticals. None of these

treatments was able to eliminate them all, but anaerobic digestion eliminated some.

5.2.3. Pathogens

With the development of the “Safe Sludge Matrix”, sewage sludge needs to be treated

before being applied to land. Therefore, during conventional sewage treatment, 99% of

pathogens have been removed, and with enhanced treatment sludge is free from

Salmonella and 99.9999% of pathogens have been destroyed (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005).


Pathogens do not present a concern for sewage sludge since it undergoes treatment. There

are no source control measures to reduce pathogens in sewage sludge.

5.2.3.2. Treatment

Composting, anaerobic digestion, and thermal drying at high temperatures will reduce

pathogens in sludge from wastewater treatment plants.

5.2.4. Summary


Table 5.7 summarises the contaminants that raise more concern in sludge, their major

sources and upstream control measures for reducing major contaminants. The strategies

that were considered to be the more effective in reducing specific types of contaminants are

presented in bold.


Table 5.7 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in sewage sludge

Contaminants of concern Major sources Potential upstream control Practicality Effectiveness Justification

PTEs

Chromium

Car washes Car wash water treatment

(GAC filter) High High

GAC filters could possibly reduce Cr inputs

into wastewater treatment.

Faeces Reducing levels in health

supplements Low Low

Health supplements are likely to comprise only

a small proportion of PTEs loading in faeces.

Lead Old pipework

corrosion

Replace metal pipework with

plastic pipework Medium High

The use of plastic pipework would

significantly reduce amounts of Pb in sludge.

Copper

Faeces It is not possible to control

levels of PTEs in faeces Low Low



Plumbing

corrosion




significantly reduce amounts of Cu in sludge.

Zinc





Plumbing

corrosion




significantly reduce amounts of Zn in sludge.

Organic

compounds

PAHs Atmospheric

deposition Catch basin in motorways Medium Medium

PAHs could possibly be reduced by using a

catch basin to recover sediments and

therefore PAHs sorbed onto these.

PCBs, PCDD/Fs Atmospheric

deposition Measures already in place - - PCBs have been banned.

Pharmaceuticals Urine and faeces

Urine separation (NoMix

technology) Medium High

Separation between urine and faeces using

the NoMix technology would significantly

reduce levels of pharmaceuticals in sludge.

Although this approach would not be practical

for all households it could be locally applied

(e.g. hospitals).

Risk classification schemes Medium High

Doctors are most likely to prescribe the most

efficacious treatment regardless of the


Benign-by-design drugs Low High

This might involve using schemes which

incentivise industry to find these more

attractive and several years of research.


Table 5.7 (cont.) Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in sewage sludge


Organic

compounds

Pharmaceuticals

Urine and faeces Promotion of greener drugs Medium High Several more years of research are needed for

the development of greener drugs.

Improper disposal

Take-back schemes for safe

disposal High High

Take-back schemes are the most practical

approach since they are already used as a

method to dispose off drugs safely.

Alter prescription practices Medium High

The prescription of starter packs at the

beginning of the treatment and review patient

consumption over time might decrease

amount of drugs disposed off.





Benign-by-design drugs

Low High




Promotion of greener drugs Medium High Several more years of research are needed for


LAS, DEHP, NP,

flame retardants,

Surfactants.

Detergent

residues,

plasticizers,

personal care

products

Development of substitutes

and ecolabelling Medium High

The use of more biodegradable materials

would reduce levels for these organic

compounds in sludge. Some are already

available and are ecolabelled. The use of

these materials would be likely to

significantly increase with extensive public

awareness campaigns.

REACh Low High

For legislation to be enforced several years

are needed and therefore practicality is low

for the present.


Contaminant Organic contaminants

PT

Es

PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Med

icin

e

Pe

stic

ide

Bio

cide

s / P

CP

s

Pat

hoge

n

Processing

Production

Source

Use

Bedding Animal

Manure

Land Application

Slurry


Co -digestion

Cleaning

Stored

5.3. Livestock manure

PTEs, veterinary medicines, biocides, cleaning chemicals and pathogens enter the waste

stream via bedding, the animal and cleaning products. The manure and slurry are often

stored before land application but can be spread directly. Figure 5.2 illustrates the pathway

of contaminants from livestock manures to land.

Figure 5.2 Livestock manure waste stream


5.3.1.1. Sources

The metal content of animal manures is a reflection of their concentration in feed and the

efficiency of feed conversion by the animal (Nicholson and Chambers, 1997, 2001). Manure

might also contain metals ingested through drinking water, that have been added with

bedding materials (e.g. straw), from the corrosion of galvanised metal used in the

construction of some livestock housing (Zn), or from footbaths used as hoof disinfectants

(Zn and Cu; ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). The addition of chromium, nickel,

lead and arsenic to animal feedstuffs in not allowed under UK or EU regulations (ADAS,


The majority of zinc and (53%) and copper (67%) in animal manure inputs come from pigs

and poultry production (Chambers et al., 1999).



For all livestock, the majority of metals consumed in feed is excreted in the faeces or urine

and will therefore be present in manure that is subsequently applied to land. The animals

excrete almost all the metals they are fed (Petersen et al., 2007).

In Section 4, input for Cu and Zn following the application of livestock manure, especially pig

manure, were more significant than input for other metals. Therefore, sources for these

metals in livestock manure are used to identify potential upstream control measures, which

are presented below.

� Sources of Cu and Zn in animal manure are from the addition of these metals to

feedstuffs. Therefore, the most important measure to reduce amounts of Cu and Zn

in livestock manures is to restrict their incorporation in feedstuffs. This has been

recently addressed by a legislation enforced in 2003 (EC, 2003), which reduces the

maximum permitted levels of Zn and Cu supplementation in livestock diets. This

legislation has been recently applied and therefore practicality is high. However,

concentrations for Cu and Zn in livestock manures reported after 2003 are still high.

Thus, this approach as yet to be effective in reducing levels for these metals in

manure.

� Further controls are possible through better tailoring the metal levels in feed to the

needs of the animal and increasing their bioavailability in the diet. In a meeting in

Geneva in 2007, 250 experts discussed how the livestock sector, especially pig

farming, is emerging as a significant contributor to environmental concerns

(Koeleman, 2007). Experts agreed that the most effective way to reduce the amount

of metals in manures is to increase their bioavailability in animal diet. The major

conclusion at this meeting was that the current levels of minerals in animal diets

within the EU are still too high (Koeleman, 2007). However, to lower the current

limits in a sensible way more research is needed on the actual requirements of

animals in different life stages, the metal bioavailability, interactions between

different minerals, and the use of organic trace element formulations. Nevertheless,

some measures have been proposed for the reduction of metals in pig feed:

� The period when high amount of Zn is added to weaning pig’s diet can be

reduced to ten days, which would significantly reduce the amount of metals

excreted in manure (Koeleman, 2007). More research is needed to provide

evidence for this approach.

� Several studies have been performed that showed that faecal Zn and Cu

concentrations were reduced when a combination of organic and inorganic

minerals was fed compared to when only inorganic mineral were fed

(sulphate form; as cited in Koeleman, 2007). Also gilts1 fed reduced

concentrations of Cu, Zn, Fe and Mn had lower concentrations in faeces

during all phases of production and this did not negatively impact the growth

or the reproduction of the gilts or the growth of their offspring (Koeleman,

2007). Research has only been applied to pigs and more research is needed

to provide evidence for this approach in other livestock.

� Mineral supplementation may not be essential since minerals are already

present in feed. Premixes may be added irrespective of the contents of the

feed (Koeleman, 2007). However, there is no substantive evidence on this. 1 Immature female pigs with fewer than two litters


5.3.1.3. Treatment

Storage and composting reduce the volume of manure without reducing the amount of

metals and so concentrate them compared to fresh manure (Petersen et al., 2007). In

contrast co-digestion or mixing with other wastes dilutes the metals present. Metals in

slurry will be found less in the liquid phase and more in the sludge after settlement. Electro

remediation could also remove metals from liquid manure (Dach and Starmans, 2006;

Petersen et al., 2007).


5.3.2.1. Sources

Veterinary medicines are extensively used in livestock production to treat diseases and

protect animal health. Therefore, veterinary medicines may be present in excreta of farm

animals (Boxall et al., 2003, 2004). In the UK, approximately 40 to 45% of the therapeutic

use of the 459 tonnes of antimicrobials used are administrated to pigs, suggesting that areas

of pig production or where pig slurry is applied on a regular basis will be the most likely to

have an impact from the presence of antimicrobials in manures (Burch, 2003).


Antibiotics are mostly excreted unmetabolised (Sarmah et al., 2006). For example, 65% of

cephalosporins (a class of antibiotics) were found to be eliminated in urine (Beconi-Barker et

al., 1996). In the animal, the drugs can be metabolised and can be designed to be more

effectively metabolised. However, metabolites formed can also be detrimental to the

environment. Further information provided by veterinary scientists on medicines may lead

to more efficient use by the animal and less excretion.

The most important organic compounds present in manures are veterinary medicines,

which include vaccines, antibiotics, antihelmintics (drugs to deal with worms) and

Ectoparasiticides (antiparasitic drugs). Potential measures to reduce the amount of

veterinary medicines present in livestock manure are presented below.

� The current choice of which treatment, within a range of authorised treatments, that

is best to prevent or control the condition in the animal relies on the farmer as

stated in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) leaflet. The HSE advises farmers or

animal handlers to choose less hazardous chemicals where possible. For example,

HSE advise the use of water-based vaccine instead of an oil-based one. An option for

the application of this measure would be to educate farmers and veterinarians on

which products to use to reduce environmental impact. The practicality of this

approach is high since this option is already available for some substances, however,

it is unlikely that this measure would greatly reduce amounts for veterinary

medicines in manures because for most veterinary medicines these are not available.

� Veterinary medicines are typically used in livestock in a prophylactic manner to

prevent diseases. Restricting veterinary medicine use to only treat animals that are

showing signs of illness would greatly reduce the amount of these organic


compounds from manures. This could be done by separating sick animals to try to

avoid the spread of disease to healthy animals. This approach would be likely to

significantly reduce amounts of veterinary medicines in manures.

� Improved animal husbandry practices such as a shift to less intensive rearing and

increased attention to hygiene. This can resolve many of the situations where the

disease and stress load on animals might warrant the use of veterinary medicines

(WHO, 1997; Witte, 1998). The practicality for this approach is low since less

intensive rearing will not be easily achieved with the increase of animal production

in recent years and there is no evidence that this would reduce disease in animals.

� Development of benign-by-design veterinary medicines that would be more

biodegradable than the ones that are currently used. However, the practicality for

this approach is low since several years of research would be needed.

5.3.2.3. Treatment

The effectiveness of any treatment depends on the particular drug in the manure. Some

medicines and their metabolites are persistent and are not completely removed through

anaerobic digestion and composting (e.g. oxytetracycline and metabolites; Arikan et al.,

2006, 2007). Some may inhibit the anaerobic digestion process (e.g. chlortetracycline; Sanz

et al., 1996). It is beyond the scope of this study to look at these drugs in detail but as more

data is gathered and ERA performed, there will be more knowledge of the best treatment

methods.

5.3.3. Pathogens

5.3.3.1. Sources

Animal manures contain pathogenic elements in variable quantities depending on the

animal health. Pathogenic microorganisms such as Esherichia c. O157, Salmonella, Listeria,

Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium and Giardia have all been isolated from cattle, pig and

sheep manures (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005).


Veterinary medicines are administered to reduce certain harmful pathogens and diseases.

Waste from infected animals with high risk diseases such as BSE should be disposed of

separately and not spread on land. However, most pathogens of concern to human health

do not affect animals and so are not treated with medicines.

Upstream measures to reduce pathogens in manures are presented below.

� Keep animals healthy and comfortable. Sick or stressed animals are more likely to

shed pathogens in their manure. Simple management practices such as vaccinations,

adequate access to feed and water, appropriate space allowance, right temperature

and ventilation, on-farm sanitation and good animal husbandry practices can reduce


pathogens in manures (Spiehs and Goyal, 2007). This is a practical approach that

might significantly reduce pathogens in manures.

� The type of animal housing facility can also reduce the levels for some pathogens.

For example, Salmonella levels decreased when slotted floors are used when

compared to other types of floors such as concrete for swine (Davies et al., 1997).

This might be due to the fact that animals housed on solid floors are often exposed

to contaminated faeces, whereas the contaminated faeces from animals in a slotted

floor barn fall to the underground pit (Spiehs and Goyal, 2007). Although this

approach is possible and could reduce levels for some pathogens, it is unlikely they

would be significantly reduced.

� Pathogens in manure can be reduced by diet selection (Spiehs and Goyal, 2007). One

way to achieve this is by adding antimicrobials to livestock diets. However, if

antimicrobials are used to control pathogens in manures, producers should only use

this approach only to treat specific diseases (Spiehs and Goyal, 2007). This approach

might reduce pathogens in manures; however, it would also increase amounts of

veterinary medicines.

5.3.3.3. Treatment

Literature suggests that temperature is the most important factor determining pathogen

survival in manures (Nicholson et al., 2007). In general, pathogens are destroyed after a

short time at high temperatures (> 55°C) and by freezing. Nevertheless, even at lower to

moderate temperatures a decline of pathogens numbers occurs over time, especially under

dry conditions or exposure to UV radiation.

The rate of pathogen decline in manures is dependent on the storage and weather

conditions. Temperature, aeration, pH and manure composition have been shown to

influence the rates of pathogens decline during storage. With increased storage duration,

pathogen levels gradually decline (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting, 2005). Due to the

lower temperatures in winter than in summer, pathogen survival times are increased. Solid

manure storage for one month is likely to be sufficient to ensure elimination of most

pathogens, provided that elevated temperatures (> 55°C) have been reached within the pile.

However, a small risk might still exist since pathogens may survive in the cooler exterior or

dryer part of the heap. Therefore, the turning and composting of manures to thoroughly mix

and promote higher temperatures should ensure effective pathogen kill.

Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of slurry can reduce the levels of slurry pathogens.

However, this is an expensive approach and would only be partially effective on the

reduction of pathogen levels. A more appropriate way would be to increase slurry storage

capacities, which would not only reduce pathogen levels but would also have the potential

for improved nutrient management practices (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting,

2005).

Many farmers spread manures directly onto soils because they do not have storage facilities

or for convenience and thus this practice presents a higher risk of pathogen transfer to soils

since there is no storage time for the decline of pathogen levels (ADAS, Imperial College, JBA

Consulting, 2005).


5.3.4. Summary

Table 5.8 summarises the contaminants that raise more concern in livestock manure, their

major sources and upstream control measures for reducing major contaminants. The

strategies judged to be more effective are shown in bold.


Table 5.8 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in livestock manure


PTEs

Copper

Feedstuffs

Reduce levels in feedstuffs High Medium Legislation has been applied and levels

remain too high.

Increase bioavailability in animal diet Medium High

With increased bioavailability of

copper and zinc in animal diet, then it

is likely that lower amounts are

needed in feedstuffs, which would

therefore effectively reduce levels in

manure. Zinc Use of combination between organic

and inorganic minerals formulations Low Medium

Research is only available for pigs and

more evidence is needed

Reduce period of animal intake Low High More evidence needed

Organic

compounds

Veterinary

medicines

Prevention and

treatment of animals

Educate farmers to choose less

hazardous chemicals High Low

Would not greatly reduce amounts in

manure

Restrict veterinary medicines to sick

animals High High

Restricting veterinary medicine use to

sick animals would greatly reduce the

amount of these organic compounds

from manures.

Improvement of animal husbandry

practices (e.g. less intensive rearing) Low Medium

Less intensive rearing is not a practical

approach.




attractive but several years of research

required.

Pathogens NA Faeces

Keeping animals healthy and

comfortable Medium High

Sick or stressed animals are more

likely to shed pathogens in their

manure.

Use of slotted floors for animal housing Low Medium Pathogens not greatly reduced

Change of diet by addition of

antimicrobials High High

Would increase amounts of organic

compounds instead



5.4. Municipal solid waste Municipal solid waste (MSW) contains domestic waste, kerbside collected waste, source

separated waste, and non-municipal waste. The waste can be source segregated or

mechanically separated. From the wide range of origins there are a wide range of

contaminants. Figure 5.3 shows the path of contaminants from MSW to land.

Figure 5.3 Municipal solid waste stream


5.4.1.1. Sources

There is variability in levels of PTEs in this waste stream due to location, seasonality and

collection method (Amlinger et al., 2004b).

Metal contaminants can be introduced into MSW by batteries, consumer electronics,

ceramics, light bulbs, house dust and paint chips, lead foils (e.g. wine bottle closures), used

motor oils, plastics, and some glass and inks can (Richard and Woodbury, 1998).

Batteries are a significant source of metals in MSW. Even after 80% of lead-acid automobile

batteries are recovered for recycling, the remaining 20% are estimated to contribute 66% of

Source

Production

Use

Municipal waste Non-municipal waste

Source separation

Land Application

Mechanical separation

Processing


Contaminant Organic contaminants P

TE

s

PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pe

rson

al

care

pr

oduc

ts

Pat

hoge

n


the lead MSW in the USA (Richard and Woodbury, 1998). Ni-Cd household batteries may be

responsible for up to 52% of the Cd (Richard and Woodbury, 1998).

Source-segregated feedstock materials, standardised to an organic matter content of 30%

dry matter, frequently exceed the averaged limit-values for biowaste compost in the EU

(Amlinger et al., 2004b):

� Paper (Cu, Zn)

� Potatoes (Cd, Cu, Zn)

� Tomatoes (Cd)

� Spinach (Cd)

� Mushroom (Cd, Cu, Hg, Zn)

� Garden waste (Cd)

� Kitchen waste (Cd, Ni)

� Wood chippings (Pb, Zn)


Some upstream control measures can be used for all contaminants, including PTEs and

these are presented below.

� Segregation of municipal solid waste is one of the best approaches for reducing

contaminants, including PTEs, and cross contamination between different waste

types in feedstock materials for composting or anaerobic digestion. Mechanical and

biological treatment (MBT) facilities include magnetic and electrical separation

techniques to remove metal waste (Defra, 2007d). However, source separation is

more effective than mechanical sorting (Braber, 1995). This approach would not only

increase the amount of waste that is recycled but also the quality of the final output

materials. Educating people on reducing household waste and increasing recycle

and/or reuse of materials would be extremely effective in reducing contaminants.

� Stewardship schemes might be used to increase recycling, reduce waste and

therefore all contaminants and these might include:

� “pay by weight” contract – this scheme has been used at some UK

universities and involves the weighing of each collected container. The

outcome was a reduction of the average number of empty bins collected per

week and consequent financial savings. This approach could be used for

commercial organisations and industry.

� The beverage container refund program has been very successful in Canada,

with a 95% return rate. In this scheme, a small amount of money is charged

upfront when the beverage is bought and is refunded when the recipient is

returned. This could be applied to cans, bottles and plastic containers.

In Section 4, input for Cd, Cr and Pb following the application of composted materials to

soils, were more significant than input for other PTEs or any digestates. Pb input from

composted materials is significantly greater than for any other material that is applied to

land. Therefore, sources of these metals in compost and digestate are used to identify


potential upstream control measures specifically for these metals, which are presented

below.

� Recycling would significantly decrease amounts of PTEs in waste feedstocks. For

example, recycling batteries would significantly decrease amounts of Cd and Pb,

recycling paper would decrease amounts of Cr, and separation of kitchen waste

would decrease further amounts of Cd. This would be the more efficient approach to

use and would also reduce waste volume.

� Use of rechargeable batteries is a practical and effective approach to reduce

contamination.

� Using Cd -free batteries. This approach is practical and is likely to greatly reduce

amounts of Cd in MSW.

5.4.1.3. Treatment

The organic fraction from MSW is composted or anaerobically digested which may increase

the heavy metal concentration due to the decreasing volume.

5.4.2. Organic Compounds

5.4.2.1. Sources

Organic compounds, such as pharmaceuticals, fragrances, surfactants, and ingredients in

household cleaning products, are likely to be found in waste streams (Eriksson et al. 2008).

Degradation-resistant herbicides, even at very low concentrations, have been identified as a

source of plant phytotoxicity of composts derived from garden waste (Hogg et al., 2002).


Strategies to reduce the amount of organic compounds at the source in municipal solid

waste are similar to those applied for the reduction of organic compounds in sewage sludge

(section 5.2). Upstream control measures previously presented for PTEs might also be used

to reduce organic compounds from municipal solid waste.

5.4.2.3. Treatment

Mechanical sorting is not effective at removing most organic contaminants, but the

biological treatments will digest some. For example, composting and anaerobic digestion

remove some organic compounds (e.g. LAS and low molecular weight phthalate esters,

respectively; Amlinger et al., 2004b).

5.4.3. Pathogens


Separation of waste streams may separate types of pathogen to some extent but pathogens

multiply and cross contamination is likely.

5.4.3.1. Treatment

Composting and anaerobic digestion can significantly reduce pathogens. Only source

segregated waste can be composted or anaerobically digested to meet the PAS 100 and PAS

110 standards, respectively (BSI, 2005).

5.4.4. Summary

Table 5.9 summarises the reduction techniques. The strategies that are considered more

effective are presented in bold.


Table 5.9 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in municipal solid waste


PTEs

Cadmium

Batteries

Source segregation of waste/

recycling

(e.g. stewardship incentive schemes)

Medium High Involves extensive public awareness but

effective measure.

Use of rechargeable batteries High Medium Less often disposed but still disposed.

Use of Cd-free batteries High High

The use of Cd-free batteries is likely to

greatly reduce cd in MSW and these are

already available.

Kitchen waste Source segregation of waste Medium High Only represents a small proportion of Cd in

MSW.

Chromium Paper

Source segregation of waste/

recycling

(e.g. stewardship incentive schemes)

Medium High Involves extensive public awareness but

effective measure.

Use of metal free inks High High

Cr in paper is mainly from inks. Thus, the

usage of metal-free inks would greatly

reduce levels for Cr in MSW.

Lead Batteries

Recycling

(e.g. stewardship incentive

schemes)

High High

Lead mainly comes from car batteries for

which there are already available schemes

for recycling.

Organic

compounds

Pharmaceuticals,

veterinary

medicines

Improper disposal

Take-back schemes for safe disposal High High






beginning of the treatment and review

patient consumption over time might

decrease amount of drugs disposed off.


Doctors are most likely to prescribe the

most efficacious treatment regardless of the



Low High



attractive but several years of research

required.


Table 5.9 (cont.) Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in municipal solid waste


Organic

compounds

Pharmaceuticals,

veterinary

medicines

Improper disposal Promotion of greener drugs Medium High Several more years of research are needed

for the development of greener drugs.

Pesticides Improper disposal

Use of biopesticides High High

Biopesticides are biodegradable pest

management tools based on beneficial

organisms and made with biologically

based active ingredients.

Use/disposal guidance Medium Medium Not as effective as chosen option.

REACh Low High



for the present.

LAS, DEHP, NP and

other organic

compounds

Detergent

residues,

surfactants,

plasticizers


REACh Low High



for the present.


5.5. Paper and pulp waste

Paper mills process virgin wood and recycled paper into pulp and then paper. Figure 5.4

illustrates this waste production stream. Some UK mills are authorized under Integrated

Pollution Control demonstrating the use of Best Available Techniques Not Entailing

Excessive Cost (BATNEEC; Thompson et al., 2001).

Figure 5.4 Paper mills waste stream

5.5.1. PTEs

5.5.1.1. Sources

Sources of metals in paper and pulp waste are from the printing inks in the form of metal-

based pigments, driers or as contaminants in the raw materials used in the formulation

process (Napim, 2010). These include metallic printing inks, generally based upon systems

containing Cu and brass (alloy of Cu and Zn), and inks that use metal-based driers, which

include driers based on Zn and Ca. Impurities and contaminants in inks might include PTEs

such as Cd, Cr and Pb (Napim, 2010).

From recycled paper, metals are introduced primarily through inks, in the deinking sludge.

Copper is the most significant metal in deinking paper sludge (Beauchamp et al., 2002;

Rashid et al., 2006). As more paper is being recycled the levels of copper in paper wastes

Production

Source

Use

Recycled Virgin wood

Deinking sludge

Land Application

Processing


Incineration Co -digestion

Contaminant

PT

Es


PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pers

onal

ca

re

Pat

hoge

n

Deinking and bleaching chemicals

Primary sludge

Combined sludge

Activated sludge


have increased (Tandy et al., 2008). To reduce the inputs, inks without metal content should

be used on papers destined to be recycled.

PTE may also be introduced through wood if the trees have been treated with CCA (copper,

chromium and arsenic) or if trees have been grown on contaminated soil, but this is not

considered as a major route.


The processes used in paper and pulp industries are designed to remove the trace metals

from effluent so that it can be reused or disposed off, which leaves the trace metals in the

sludge.

According to section 4, the PTEs of higher concern in paper waste are Cd, Cr, Pb and Zn.

Upstream control measures for the paper and pulp industry are presented below.

� Use of metal-free inks – this would be the most effective strategy to reduce metal

contamination in sludge. Metal-free inks are vegetable oil-based (Telschow, 1994)

and can prevent pollution in:

� the waste ink produced by a printer, that is currently disposed of as

hazardous waste;

� the printed materials that are landfilled or incinerated; and

� the sludge that is created during the deinkning and repulping of waste paper

fibres as they are made into recycled paper (Telschow, 1994).

� Separate de-inking sludge from other waste - keeping de-inking sludge separated

from other sludges that do not contain such high levels of PTEs would also be likely

to reduce contamination. This approach is practicable and effective, however, not as

effective as eliminating the use of metals in the first instance.

� Use of untreated wood as raw material – making sure that the wood used in paper

industry does not contain PTEs reduces contamination of paper waste by these

contaminants. This would require analysis of the raw materials in the paper and pulp

industry, but would not be very effective since a much larger proportion of metals

are from the use of inks.

5.5.1.3. Treatment

The METIX-AC is a process to remove metals from sludge. It involves the chemical leaching

of metals from sludge with the use of sulphuric acid and strong oxidants (e.g. hydrogen

peroxide). This process has been shown to remove copper, cadmium, and zinc from sludge,

while preserving satisfactory levels of nutrients (Barraoui et al., 2008). However, Barraoui et

al. (2008) concluded that this method was inefficient for the removal of Cr and Pb from all

tested sludges and is probably not adapted for the removal of Cu from the pulp and paper

industry sludge.


5.5.2. Organic Contaminants

5.5.2.1. Sources

Many chemicals are added in the production process, chlorine for bleaching (measured as

AOX), surfactants in the flotation process (Tandy et al., 2008), biocides to stop microbial

growth (PITA, 2009), and dyes to colour the paper. Naturally occurring fatty and resin acids

are present (Beauchamp et al., 2002; Rashid et al., 2006). Organic contaminants may also be

present in recycled paper ink and coatings. Appendix F shows a list of potential

contaminants (DoE, 1996b).


The most important organic contaminants in the paper and pulp industry are the chlorine

products used during the bleaching process, measured as AOX.

Upstream control measures for reducing concentrations of organic compounds in the paper

and pulp industry are presented below.

� Use of non-chlorinated products in the bleaching process - public concern about the

environmental hazard of using chlorine in the bleaching process has resulted in a

dramatic decrease over the last decade (IPPC, 2001). Therefore, there was also an

increase on the use of Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) and Elementary Chlorine Free (ECF)

bleaching processes, which reduced the chlorinated organic substances in the waste.

This is the most effective and practical approach to reduce organic compounds

contamination in waste.

� Environmental risk assessment on the chemicals added to the paper making

processes would allow educated choices on chemicals to use and encourage

research on alternatives. The use of legislation, such as REACh, could enforce this

measure. Practicality for this approach is judged low since several years are still

needed for legislation to be enforced.

� Separate collection and intermediate storage of waste fractions at the source would

minimise the solid waste and increase the recovery, recycling and re-use of these

materials when possible (IPPC, 2001). This approach would be effective, however,

not as effective as eliminating the use of contaminants in the first instance.

5.5.2.3. Treatment

During activated sludge treatment, which breaks down organic contaminants (AOX and

chlorinated phenols), filamentous algae may build up and cause further operational

problems. Chemicals can be added to prevent this but a better alternative is to use an

ultrafiltration membrane to exclude the microorganisms or pre-treatment ozonation

(Thompson et al., 2001).

Anaerobic digestion and composting are the most common treatments for paper and pulp

sludge. Resin, fatty acids and PAHs are mostly undetectable after 24 weeks of composting


(Beauchamp et al., 2002). In a comparative study of different treatments Pokhrel and

Viraraghavan (2004) concluded that anaerobic followed by aerobic treatment was the best

combination. Although, the long residency time of anaerobic digestion has been a deterring

factor in its use, new improvements in technology including thermophilic digesters may

encourage use (Elliott and Mahmood, 2007).

Deinking paper sludge has been successfully treated using supercritical water oxidation by a

Swedish company “Chematur”. However it has not become a common treatment due to

expense and transport, and reactors need to be designed to deal with specific wastes

(Kritzer and Dinjus, 2001). Fungal treatments for colour removal are also proved to be

effective (Pokhrel and Viraraghavan, 2004).

5.5.3. Pathogens

5.5.3.1. Sources

Thermo tolerant coliform bacteria enter the paper process through wood chips (Beauchamp

et al., 2006).


Despite the chemicals used in the processes pathogens have been reported to survive in

paper mill effluents, to increase density in the primary clarifier and to multiply in the

combined sludges (Beauchamp et al., 2006). Keeping sludges with coliforms separated will

reduce cross contamination. Nevertheless, pathogens are not expected to be of concern in

paper and pulp waste.

5.5.3.3. Treatment

Deinking sludge and biological treatment sludge are both successfully composted,

separately and together, without other amendments and can reach thermophilic conditions

required for sanitation (Gea et al., 2005).

5.5.4. Summary

Table 5.10 summarises the reduction techniques. The strategies judged the more effective

for each contaminant are shown in bold.


Table 5.10 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in paper and pulp waste


PTEs

Cadmium Ink

Use of metal-free inks High High

Using metal-free inks would eliminate PTEs

in the ink produced by a printer; in the

printed materials that are landfilled or

incinerated; in the sludge created during

de-inking in paper recycling.

Separate de-inking sludge from other paper

waste Medium High

Not as effective as eliminating the use of

PTEs in inks.

Lead Ink


Using metal-free inks would eliminate

amount of PTEs in the waste ink produced

by a printer; in the printed materials that

are landfilled or incinerated; in the sludge

created during de-inking in paper recycling.


waste Medium High


PTEs in inks.

Chromium Ink

Treated wood


Using metal-free inks would eliminate PTEs

in the waste ink produced by a printer; in

the printed materials that are landfilled or

incinerated; in the sludge created during

de-inking in paper recycling.


waste Medium High


PTEs in inks.

Use of untreated wood as raw material in

paper industry Medium Low Not a significant reduction of Cr.

Copper Ink

Treated wood


Using metal-free inks would reduce

amount of PTEs in the waste ink produced

by a printer; in the printed materials that

are landfilled or incinerated; in the sludge

created during de-inking in paper recycling.


waste Medium High


PTEs in inks.

Use of untreated wood as raw material in

paper industry Medium Low Not a significant reduction for Cu.


Table 5.10 (cont.) Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in paper and pulp waste


Organic

Compounds AOX

Chlorine products

used in the bleaching

process

Use of non-chlorinated compounds High High

Using Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) and

Elementary Chlorine Free (ECF) bleaching

processes reduces concentrations of

chlorinated organic substances in waste.

Separate collection of waste fractions Medium High Not as effective as eliminating the use of

AOX in inks.

REACh Low High

For legislation to be applied several years


at present.


5.6. Waste wood, bark and other plant waste

Figure 5.5 illustrates the path of contaminants in wood and plant waste. Wood waste is

being increasingly reused where possible, and what is not reused, can be recovered for land

spreading. Wood that is reused for other products such as cardboard or fibreboard will

eventually become waste again with the potential for soil application.

Much of the plant material waste from parks and gardens are treated by mechanical

biological treatment facilities or composted.

Figure 5.5 Waste wood, bark and other plant waste

Risk assessment has shown that more research is needed before treated wood can be

composted for soil application (Table 5.11; WRAP, 2005). Copper, chromium and arsenic

(CCA) and creosote treated wood is regulated under the Environmental Protection (Control

of Dangerous Substances) Regulations (SI 2003/3274) and The Creosote (Prohibition on Use

and Marketing) Regulations (SI 2003/791) respectively and cannot be used for soil

application.

Source

Production

Use

Untreated wood

Reclaimed/ treated wood

Wood and plant Waste

Land Application

Processing


Contaminant

PT

Es

Organic contaminants P

OP

s

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pe

rson

al

care

pr

oduc

ts

Pat

hoge

n

Plant material


Table 5.11 Result of risk assessment of treated waste wood (WRAP, 2005)

5.6.1. PTEs

5.6.1.1. Sources

Accurate data on wood waste is not readily available, but a study of waste wood from Civic

Amenity sites found that 85% of the wood was treated with some product (WRAP, 2005).

Treated waste wood includes wood treated with CCA, copper organics, creosote, light

organic solvent preservatives (LOSP), paint and stain, and varnish. However, PTEs content of

wood wastes are likely to be low. PTEs are unlikely in plant waste and untreated wood

unless they have been grown on contaminated ground.

Most treated wood is not suitable for use as compost and should not be used. However,

waste wood may be used for other products that eventually find their way back into the

waste stream e.g. via chipboard or packaging. For this reason, a record from where wood

has been sourced would be useful to identify potential contaminants without testing.


No data has been found on the input of PTEs from waste wood, waste bark and other plant

waste to soil following landspreading. However, inputs of PTEs are likely to be low.

The most efficient approaches to reduce PTEs contamination in wood, where treatments

using PTEs are used, are presented below.

� Restrict the use of PTEs during wood treatment- wood is treated with CCA and

copper organics. Restricting the use of these PTEs based preservatives reduces the

amount of the PTEs in wood. This approach might not be practicable, since no data

on other methods to treat wood have been found.


� Separate woods according to the treatment to which they were subjected. For

example, SMARTWaste (www.smartwaste.co.uk) is a waste auditing tool in

operation in the UK where the waste wood is separated into 12 groups, one of

which is timber. This increases the amount of wood that can be composted, re-used

and recycled. This approach has been used and therefore practicality is judged as

high. It would also be effective since different treatments might be applied for the

removal of different contaminants.

5.6.1.3. Treatment

Although treated wood cannot be used, some emerging technologies have produced good

recovery rates of wood and metals. A dual remediation process using oxalic acid and Bacillus

licheniformis CC01 removed 78% copper, 97% chromium, and 93% arsenic from waste wood

(Claussen, 2000). In another study, 93% of copper, 95% of chromium, and 99% of arsenic

were removed by electrodialytic removal (Ribeiro et al., 2000).


5.6.2.1. Sources

Creosote, light organic solvent preservatives (LOSP), micro-emulsion, paint and stain, and

varnish may be present in wood waste. Regarding plant waste, pesticides are used on plants

and are therefore likely to enter the plant waste stream. More research is needed before

composting wood treated with organic chemical preservatives, paint, and varnish (WRAP,

2005).


Upstream control measures to reduce concentrations of organic compounds in wood waste,

bark waste and other plant material are presented below.

� Source separation of woods according to the treatment to which they were

subjected (e.g. SMARTWaste). Again, this approach seems to be effective in

separating different contaminants that might be removed with further treatment.

� Environmental risk assessment of chemicals used – this measure applies to wood

and plant waste. For example, environmental risk assessment of preservatives and

pesticides applied to wood and plant, respectively, would allow educated choices on

which chemicals to use and encourage research on alternatives. The use of

legislation, such as REACh, could enforce this measure. Practicality for this approach

is judged low since several years are still needed for legislation to be enforced.

� Alternatives for pesticides – biopesticides are an alternative to persistent

compounds. These are biodegradable pest management tools based on beneficial

microorganisms, nematodes or other safe, biologically based active ingredients. This

approach is the more effective way to reduce pesticide residues in plant waste. But

biopesticides are not available for all plant protection product requirements.


� Usage/ disposal guidance for the use of pesticides by the public– presently, guidance

on how to use pesticides and on how to dispose them after usage is not very clear.

This approach would be effective to reduce pesticide contamination; however,

eliminating the use of these chemicals in the first instance is more effective.

Composting of the waste will break down some organic contaminants but more field

research is needed to get accurate data.

5.6.3. Pathogens

Pathogens are not deliberately introduced but can always be present.

5.6.3.1. Sources

With green plant material and rotted roots there is a possibility of plant pathogens,

particularly fungi being present (Davis and Rudd, 1999). A list of potential toxins found in

green compost and that could also be found in plant waste is presented in Appendix D.

Therefore, the origin of waste plant matter has to be considered in case diseased material is

present that could act a source of infection for crops.

5.6.3.2. Treatment

Anaerobic digestion or composting the waste will reduce pathogens to an acceptable level.

Treating plants and wood to remove pathogens will add other contaminants to the waste

stream.

5.6.4. Summary

Table 5.12 summarises the upstream control measures that can be applied to reduce

contaminants for wood, bark and other plant waste streams. The strategies judged to be

more effective for each contaminant are shown in bold.


Table 5.12 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in wood, bark and other plant waste


PTEs

Arsenic

Wood treatment

Separate woods according to treatment

received. High High

Separation of woods according to

treatment received e.g.

SMARTWaste. This would increase

the re-use, recycle and composting of

wood waste.

Chromium

Copper Restrict the use of PTEs based

preservatives. Low High

No other treatments seem to be

available.

Organic

Compounds

Creosote,

preservatives, micro-

emulsion, paint and

stain, and varnish

Wood treatment

Separate woods according to treatment

received. High High

Separation of woods according to

treatment received e.g.

SMARTWaste. This would increase

the re-use, recycle and composting of

wood waste.

REACh Low High

For legislation to be enforced several

years are needed and therefore

practicality is low at present.

Pesticides Plant treatment



management tools based on

beneficial organisms and made with

biologically based active ingredients.

Use/disposal guidance Medium Medium

Not as effective as eliminating the use

of these chemicals in the first

instance.

REACh Low High



practicality is low at present.

Pathogens Fungi Plant

Carefully select raw material High High This will avoid contamination of

wastes with fungi or plant pathogens Wood


Source

Production

Use

Agricultural land Industrial discharge

Drained on adjacent land

Land Application

Processing


Contaminant

Hea

vy

Met

als


PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pe

rson

al

care

pr

oduc

ts

Pat

hoge

n

Diffuse sources Sewage works output

Water and Sediment

5.7. Dredgings from inland waters Figure 5.6 shows that contaminants enter the water and either settle into or are adsorbed

onto the sediment.

Figure 5.6 Dredgings waste stream

Contaminants can enter from both diffuse and point sources and the types and quantities

vary widely due to location of the waterway. Whether it is a rural or industrial area, fast or

slow flowing waterway, and frequently or rarely dredged waterway, will affect the

contaminant content of the dredging. Sediments may have built up for years and may have

been taken from places where there are industrial areas. Therefore, contaminants related to

those industries may be detected in those sediments (Gendebien et al., 2001).

By dewatering the sediment alongside the waterway, rain and leachate may wash metals in

solution back to the waterway and re-contaminate the sediment and surrounding soil.

According to section 4, input of PTEs following the application of dredging to soil is much

higher than inputs from any other materials. However, areas from where those

concentrations are reported are not specified and might be from urban and extremely

polluted areas. Therefore, before application, levels of contaminants should be checked and

if levels of contaminants are high those sediments should not be applied to land.


5.7.1. PTEs

5.7.1.1. Sources

The main source of PTEs into the water is from sewage works and industrial discharges. PTEs

might also enter waterways through the runoff from fields where sewage sludge or livestock

manures have been applied. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) works to reduce inputs

into waterways but PTEs may still be present from past releases. Therefore, sources of PTEs

in dredging materials are the same as the ones discussed for sewage sludge (section 5.2.)

and livestock manure (section 5.3.).


According to section 4, concentrations of PTEs in sediments are so high that they were not

comparable to any other waste. Upstream control measures to reduce concentrations of

PTEs in dredging are presented below.

� Upstream control measures for reducing PTEs in dredgways are the same as those

discussed for sewage sludge (section 5.2.) and livestock manure (section 5.3.) and

these would likely to reduce amounts of PTEs discharged by municipal and industrial

STPs and/or runoff from fields. Livestock manure upstream control measures have

been considered less effective than sewage sludge approaches since PTEs in runoff

are likely to represent a small proportion of PTEs applied to fields. Measures for

sewage sludge would reduce amounts of organic compounds in effluents directly

discharged from sewage treatment plants into surface waters, and could therefore

reduce levels in dredgings. However, since PTEs do not degrade, they will still be

present due to existing contamination.

5.7.1.3. Treatment

The digestion of the dredging will not reduce the metal content, but leaching may. Use of

sensors to provide data on the sediments may guide potential choices of treatment needed

before spreading the dredgings Alcock et al. (2003). Records of previous tests and

contaminant levels in areas will provide a history for dredged waterways. Therefore

contamination may be able to be predicted and suitable treatments selected if appropriate

or cost effective.


5.7.2.1. Sources

Organic contaminants can enter from diffuse sources such as runoff from agricultural land

and point sources in industry or sewage works. Therefore, sources of organic contaminants

in dredging are likely to be the same as sources of organic contaminants in sewage sludge

(section 5.2.) and livestock manure (section 5.3.).


Decreasing the use and production of persistent organic contaminants in general will reduce

what enters waterways. The WFD is designed to reduce such inputs into waterways.

Persistent contaminants will be still present even if their use has been banned (e.g. DDT).


Upstream control measures to reduce organic compound contamination in sediments are

presented below.

� Suggested measures to control organic compound contamination in sewage sludge

(section 5.2.) and manure (section 5.3.) will also be relevant for dredgings. Measures

for sewage sludge would reduce amounts of organic compounds in effluents directly

discharged from sewage treatment plants into surface waters and could therefore

reduce levels in dredgings.

5.7.2.3. Treatment

At the sediment floor of waterway the processes are predominantly anaerobic. By bringing

the sediment out of the water into the air the aerobic processes take place. This will allow

degradation of some contaminants. Composting will continue and increase degradation of

organic contaminants but some may persist.

5.7.3. Pathogens

5.7.3.1. Sources

Pathogen sources in waterways are likely to be the same as sources for PTEs and organic

compounds. When the sediments are out of the water and in the right conditions pathogens

might continue to multiply.

5.7.3.2. Treatment

Composting will reduce most pathogens if a sufficient temperature is reached.

5.7.4. Summary

Table 5.13 summarises the upstream control measures that can be applied to reduce

contaminants for dredging from inland waters. The strategies judged to be more effective

for each contaminant are shown in bold.


Table 5.13 Upstream control measures for contaminants in dredgings from inland waters


PTEs

Chromium

Car washes Car wash water treatment

(GAC filter) High Medium

GAC filters could possibly reduce Cr inputs

into wastewater treatment.

Human faeces Reducing levels in health

supplements Low Low



Lead Old pipework

corrosion


plastic pipework Medium Medium


significantly reduce amounts of Pb in sludge.

Copper





Plumbing

corrosion




significantly reduce amounts of Cu in sludge.

Feedstuffs

Reduce levels in feedstuffs High Low Represent only a small proportion of Cu in

runoff.

Increase bioavailability in

animal diet Medium Low

Represent only a small proportion of Cu in

runoff.

Use of combination between

organic and inorganic minerals

formulations

Low Low Represent only a small proportion of Cu in

runoff.

Reduce period of animal intake Low Low Represent only a small proportion of Cu in

runoff.

Zinc

Human faeces It is not possible to control




Plumbing

corrosion




significantly reduce amounts of Zn in sludge.

Feedstuffs

Reduce levels in feedstuffs High Low Represent only a small proportion of Zn in

runoff.

Increase bioavailability in

animal diet Medium Low

Represent only a small proportion of Zn in

runoff.

Use of combination between

organic and inorganic minerals

formulations

Low Low Represent only a small proportion of Zn in

runoff.

Reduce period of animal intake Low Low Represent only a small proportion of Zn in

runoff.


Table 5.13 (cont.) Upstream control measures for contaminants in dredgings from inland waters


Organic

compounds

PCBs, PCDD/Fs Atmospheric

deposition Measures already in place - - PCBs have been banned.

PAHs Atmospheric


PAHs could possibly be reduced by using a

catch basin to recover sediments and

therefore PAHs sorbed onto these.

Pharmaceuticals

Urine and faeces

Urine separation (NoMix

technology) Medium Medium

Separation between urine and faeces using

the NoMix technology would significantly

reduce levels of pharmaceuticals in sludge.

Although this approach would not be practical

for all households it could be locally applied

(e.g. hospitals).

Risk classification schemes Medium Medium




Benign-by-design drugs Low Medium




Promotion of greener drugs Medium Medium Several more years of research are needed for


Improper disposal


disposal High Medium






beginning of the treatment and review patient

consumption over time might decrease amount

of drugs disposed off.






Low High




Promotion of greener drugs Medium High Several more years of research are needed for



Table 5.13 (cont.) Upstream control measures for contaminants in dredgings from inland waters


Organic

compounds

LAS, DEHP, NP, and

other organic

contaminants

Detergent

residues,

surfactants,

plasticizers

Development of substitutes and

ecolabelling Medium High

The use of more biodegradable materials

would reduce levels for these organic

compounds in effluents and therefore in .

Some are already available and are

ecolabelled. The use of these materials would

be likely to significantly increase with

extensive public awareness campaigns.

REACh Low High

For legislation to be enforced several years are

needed and therefore practicality is low for the

present.

Veterinary

medicines

Prevention and

treatment of

animals


hazardous chemicals High Low Would not greatly reduce amounts in manure.

Restrict veterinary medicines to

sick animals High High

Restricting veterinary medicine use to sick

animals would greatly reduce the amount of

these organic compounds from manures.

Improvement of animal

husbandry practices (e.g. less

intensive rearing)

Low Medium Less intensive rearing is not a practical

approach.





Pathogens NA Animal

faeces


comfortable High High

Sick or stressed animals are more likely to

shed pathogens in their manure.

Use of slotted floors for animal

housing Low Medium Pathogens not greatly reduced.




compounds instead.


Source

Production

Use

Guts content Blood and flesh

Dissolved Air Flotation

Land Application

Separation of diseased animals

Processing


Incineration

Contaminant

PT

Es


PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pe

rson

al

care

pr

oduc

ts

Pat

hoge

n

Cleaning chemicals

5.8. Abattoir waste

Waste in an abattoir derives from the unused animal parts, blood, and the animals gut

contents. Waste also comes from washing of the animals and the equipment. Figure 5.7

shows the path of contaminants to land.

Figure 5.7 Abattoir waste stream

Abattoir wastes are composted or subject to anaerobic digestion prior to land application.

Dissolved air flotation separates the solid and effluent waste of the slaughtered animal so

they can be disposed of separately. Blood is collected for separate treatment or processing

(Defra, 2003).

5.8.1. PTEs

5.8.1.1. Sources

PTEs sources in abattoir waste are the same as sources for animal manure (section 5.3) and

similar to animal manure, copper and zinc are the predominant PTEs present.



Upstream control measures for the reduction of PTEs contamination would be the same as

the ones suggested for livestock manure (section 5.3). These measures could reduce levels

of PTEs in animals and also in manures. This information is included in the summary table

(Table 5.14) to avoid repetition in the text.

� Separation of the gut contents from the other waste- this measure reduces amounts

of PTEs in the final waste stream and is an approach that is already being use.

5.8.1.3. Treatment

As with animal manure, there is no treatment proven to remove PTEs.


5.8.2.1. Sources

In addition to veterinary medicines described in section 2.4.2.4, wash water chemicals used

in abattoirs may contaminate the waste stream.


Upstream control measures for the reduction of organic compounds contamination would

be the same as the ones suggested for livestock manure (section 5.3). This information is

included in the summary table (Table 5.14) to avoid repetition in the text.

� ERA of chemicals used as detergents - ERA of detergents used to clean abattoirs

would allow educated choices on which chemicals to use and encourage research on

alternatives.

� Separate gut contents from other wastes – gut contents will have higher amounts of

veterinary medicines when animals have been treated.

5.8.2.3. Treatment

Anaerobic digestion and composting will degrade some organic contaminants.

5.8.3. Pathogens

Many pathogens are found in abattoir waste such as Esherichia c. O157, Salmonella, Listeria,

Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium and Giardia.

5.8.3.1. Sources

Pathogens are present in animals as discussed in section 5.3.3.3.



Upstream control measures to reduce pathogen contamination in livestock manure (section

5.3.) will reduce pathogen content in abattoir waste. This information is included in the

summary table to avoid repetition in the text.

5.8.3.3. Treatment

Digesting and composting the waste reduces the pathogenic content. The Animal By-

product Regulations (EU, 2002) specify treatment of temperatures reaching 70°C for one

hour and waste having a maximum particle size of 12mm.

5.8.4. Summary

To reduce contamination of abattoir waste, upstream control measures suggested for

livestock manure are likely to be the more appropriate for this waste stream and these are



Table 5.14 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in abattoir waste


PTEs

Copper

Gut contents from

feedstuffs

Reduce levels in feedstuffs High High Legislation has been applied and

levels remain too high.

Increase bioavailability in animal diet Medium High Still present in the diet but lower

amounts.

Use of combination between organic and

inorganic minerals formulations Low Medium

Research is only available for pigs

and more evidence is needed.

Zinc

Reduce period of animal intake Low Medium More evidence needed.

Keep gut contents separated from other

waste High High

Separate gut contents from the

other abattoir waste reduces

amounts of Cu and Zn in the final

waste.

Organic

compounds

Veterinary

medicines

Gut content - used

for

prevention and


Educate farmers to choose less hazardous

chemicals High Low

Would not greatly reduce

amounts in animals.

Restrict veterinary medicines to sick animals High High

Restricting veterinary medicine

use to sick animals would greatly

reduce the amount of these

organic compounds both in

animals and in manure.

Improvement of animal husbandry practices

(e.g. less intensive rearing) Low Medium

Less intensive rearing is not a

practical approach.


This might involve using schemes

which incentivise industry to find

these more attractive and several

years of research.

Keep gut contents separated from other

waste High High

Separate gut contents from the

other abattoir waste reduces

amounts of medicines in the final

waste.

LAS, NP and

other organic

compounds in

cleaning

products

Detergent residues,

surfactants REACh Low High

For legislation to be enforced

several years are needed and

therefore practicality is low for

the present.


Table 5.14 (cont.) Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in abattoir waste


Pathogens NA Animal faeces

Keeping animals healthy and comfortable High High



manure.

Use of slotted floors for animal housing Low Medium Pathogens not greatly reduced.

Change of diet by addition of antimicrobials High High Would increase amounts of organic

compounds instead.



5.9. Textile industry waste

Textile manufacturing begins with making fibres from plants, animal wool, or synthetics.

Fibres are made into yarn and then fabric to produce a variety of goods from designer

clothing to carpets. Figure 5.8 demonstrates the migration of contaminants.

Figure 5.8 Textile industry waste stream

5.9.1. PTEs

5.9.1.1. Sources

Dyes are the major source of metals into the textile processes (Davis and Rudd, 1999).

Metals can be present for two reasons. First, metals are used as catalysts during dye

manufacture and may be present as impurities. Second, in some dyes the metal is chelated

with the dye molecule (IPPC, 2003a). For example, chromium may be used in wool dyeing as

a mordant, which is a substance used to set dyes on fabrics by forming a coordination

complex with the dye which then attaches to the fabric (Binkley et al., 2000). Zinc

compounds are used to flameproof wool (DoE, 1996c). Other traces of metals may enter

from raw fibre, water, corrosion, and chemical impurities (Binkley et al., 2000).

Source

Production

Use

Natural fibre Synthetic fibre

Yarn and fabric production waste

Land Application

Yarn and fabric treatment waste

Processing


Other Co -digestion

Contaminant

PT

Es


PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/p

erso

nal

care

pr

oduc

ts

Pat

hoge

n

Dying washing and bleaching chemicals

Dyeing waste



A reference document on Best available Techniques (BAT) for the textile industry has been

produced by the European Commission (IPPC, 2003a). Major sources of PTEs in textile waste

are from the use of dyes.

Upstream control measures for the textile industry are presented below.

� Reduce the amount of PTEs in dyes – these are present in dyes as impurities or used

within the dyeing process as catalysts. To reduce PTEs in the textile industry starting

products should be carefully selected and these would reduce impurities.

Substitution of PTEs as reaction catalysts by other substances would reduce the

amount of PTEs in dyeing waste. This would involve finding substitutes for PTEs and

this might require several years; however, it would be an effective measure to

reduce PTEs contamination in waste.

� Separate dyeing and post-dyeing waste from other waste streams- keeping waste

streams with PTEs separate will avoid contamination of other sludges by PTEs, as

these are only present in dyeing and post dyeing waste. This is the most practical

and effective approach.

� Environmental risk assessment of the treatments used – this would provide data to

choose the best practice techniques and provide guidelines or legislation to limit the

use of metals within the textile industry. However, this approach might also require

several years to be applied.

5.9.1.3. Treatment

Electrolysis could recover the metals especially as they will be in solution, but no literature

currently exists on proven techniques.

The quality of the sludge can be improved during the treatment process; chemical products

such as chromium and copper salts are being replaced by products with lower

environmental impact on the water quality or that are more readily biodegradable.


5.9.2.1. Sources

Raw material fibres are likely to contain pesticides or/and other preparation agents. For

example, fleeces from sheep may contain traces of sheep dip chemicals.

During production and treatment potential chemical pollutants are added. Processes are

dependent on specific textiles and include dyes, pesticides, special finishes, flame

retardants, and insect proofers. Public fashion demand can drive choice of dyes and types of

material (Correia et al., 1994).



The Ecological and Toxicological Association of the Dyestuffs Manufacturing Industry (ETAD)

aims to minimize contamination of the environment (Robinson et al., 2001) and REACh

(2007) require environmental risk assessment of chemicals before new releases. This does

not mean that older chemicals are assessed and this is an area for further study.

� Substitution of persistent chemicals - BAT suggested by the Integrated Pollution

Prevention and Control (IPPC) follows certain principles in the selection of chemicals:

� Where it is possible to achieve the desired process without the use of chemicals

then their use should be avoided; and

� Where this is not possible, chemicals that pose a lowest environmental risk

should be used when available.

� Separate waste from processes that use persistent chemicals - similarly to metal

contamination, any waste from a process with persistent chemicals should be kept

separate. Waste effluent can be recycled and the treatment chemicals recovered,

which reduces contaminants in waste.

BAT for the substitution of hazardous chemicals in textile industry are presented in Table

5.15.

Table 5.15 BAT for the substitution of hazardous chemicals in the textile industry (IPPC,

2003a) Chemical BAT

Surfactants

(e.g.

alkylphenolethoxylates)

Substitute alkylphenol ethoxylates and other hazardous surfactants with susbtitutes that

are readily biodegradable or bioeliminable in the waste water treatment plant and do not

form toxic metabolites (e.g. alcohol ethoxylates)

Complexing agents

(e.g. EDTA)

� Avoid or reduce the use of complexing agent in pretreatment and dyeing processes by a

combination of:

- softening of fresh water to remove the iron and the hardening alkaline-earth cations

from the process water;

- using a dry process to remove coarse iron particles from the fabric before bleaching .

This treatment is convenient when the process starts with an oxidative/desizing step,

otherwise a huge amount of chemicals would be required to dissolve the coarse iron

particles in a wet process. However, this step is not necessary when an alkaline scouring

treatment is carried out as a first step before bleaching;

- removing the iron that is inside the fibre using acid demineralisation, or better,

nonhazardous reductive agents before bleaching heavily contaminated

fabrics; and

- applying hydrogen peroxide under optimal controlled conditions.

� select biodegradable or bioeliminable complexing agents

Antifoaming agents � minimise or avoid their use by:

- using bath-less air-jets, where the liquor is not agitated by fabric rotation;

- re-using treated bath; and

� select anti-foaming agents that are free from mineral oils and that are characterised by

high bioelimination rates.

� Careful selection of raw materials - currently textile manufacturers are not well

informed about the quality and quantity of substances applied in the fibre during

upstream processes (e.g. preparation agents, chemicals, knitting oils). For example,


fleeces from sheep may contain traces of sheep dip. Patterson et al. (2004) suggests

three methods for reducing pollution from sheep dip chemicals:

� Test incoming wool and only accept it if suitable;

� Accept only wool with either lipophiphilic or hydrophilic pesticides to ensure the

pesticide is removed into either the aqueous or solid waste; and

� Ensure degradation of the pesticide before acceptance by using with-holding

times between dipping and shearing.

Table 5.16 lists identified BAT for some raw materials to prevent at the source that

pollutants in the raw material fibre enter the finishing process (IPPC, 2003a).

Table 5.16 BAT for the selection of incoming fibre materials (IPPC, 2003a) Raw material BAT

Man-made fibres - select material treated with low-emission and biodegradable/bioeliminable preparation agents.

Cotton - select material sized with low add-on techniques (pre-wetting of the warp yarn) and high-efficiency

bioeliminable sizing agents;

- use the available information to avoid processing fibre material contaminated with the most

hazardous chemicals such as pentachlorophenol; and

- use organically grown cotton when market conditions allow.

Wool - use the available information to avoid processing fibre material contaminated with the most

hazardous chemicals such as OC pesticides residues;

- minimise at source any legally used sheep ectoparasiticides by encouraging the development of low

pesticide residue wool by continuing dialogue with competent bodies responsible for wool production

and marketing in all producing countries; and

- select wool yarn spun with biodegradable spinning agents instead of formulations based on mineral

oils and/or containing APEO.

5.9.2.3. Treatment

The nature of dyes is to resist decomposition so that they stay bright and colourful.

Robinson et al. (2001) reviewed chemical, physical and biological treatments of textile waste

containing dyes. Table 5.17 summarises chemical and physical methods. Sorption to wood

chips followed by treatment with white rot fungi is the optimum treatment as the wood

chips provide an ideal substrate for the fungi and then it can be digested before land

spreading (Robinson et al., 2001).


Table 5.17 Chemical and Physical treatments of textile waste (Robinson et al., 2001).

Biological treatments perform well at degrading various dyes. Anaerobic digestion was

found to be effective for AZO dyes, but co-digesting may be necessary to provide enough

carbon to begin the process. Surfactants that are present in the effluent can inhibit

anaerobic digestion depending on concentration (Feitkenhauer and Meyer, 2002).

5.9.3. Pathogens

5.9.3.1. Sources

Wool and plants may introduce pathogens into the textile processes. Pathogens might be

present in waste from fibre production but not in wastes further down the manufacturing

line.

5.9.3.2. Treatment

The dry dust, dirt, hair and vegetable matter etc from raw materials in fibre production is

composted before land application to remove pathogens.

5.9.4. Summary

Table 5.18 summarises the upstream control measures for reducing contaminants from

textile industry waste. Measures that have been judged to be more effective are shown in

bold.


Table 5.18 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in textile industry waste.


PTEs

Chromium Dyes

Reduce amounts of metals in dyes Low High Several years might be needed.

Separate wastes that contain PTEs. High High

Separation of dyeing and post-

dyeing wastes from the other

waste streams reduces PTEs

contamination of the final waste.

ERA of treatments used Low High

Several years are needed and


the present.

Zinc Dyes

Flameproof wool

Reduce amounts of metals in dyes Low High Several years might be needed.

Separate wastes that contain PTEs High High

Separation of dyeing and post-

dyeing wastes from the other

waste streams reduces PTEs


ERA of treatments used Low High

Several years are needed and


the present.

Organic

compounds

Surfactants,

complexing agents,

antifoaming agents,

Flame retardants

Processes used

Substitution of persistent chemicals.

High High

Substitution of persistent

chemicals by others less

hazardous reduces amount of

organic compounds in wastes.

These are already available.

Separate the wastes from the different

processes. Medium High

Less effective than chosen

measure.

Biocides Animal treatment Use of biopesticides High High

Biopesticides are biodegradable

pest management tools based on

beneficial organisms and made

with biologically based active

ingredients.


ERA – environmental risk assessment


Table 5.18 (cont.) Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in textile industry waste.


Organic

compounds

Biocides (cont.) Animal treatment REACh Low High

For legislation to be enforced

several years are needed and


the present.

Preparation agents,

knitting oils Raw materials Careful selection of raw materials. High High

Testing of raw material or

incoming fibres before accepting

for processing.


5.10. Tannery and leather waste

The leather and tannery industry takes animal skins together with bits of flesh and dirt and

turns them into preserved, flexible, attractive leather. This is achieved by pre-tanning or

beamhouse processes where hair, dirt and flesh are removed, and the tanning and finishing

processes which include dyeing, trimming and protecting the leather. Figure 5.9 illustrates

the processes involved.

Figure 5.9 Tannery and leather waste stream

5.10.1. PTEs

5.10.1.1. Sources

Cr is used as a tanning agent and is the main PTE associated with the leather industry.

Tanning agents are chosen for the particular properties they give leather, and Cr is the most

popular.

Source

Production

Use

Hides, skin, flesh, dirt, hair Chemicals

Pre-tanning / Beamhouse waste

Land Application

Tanning waste

Processing


Co -digestion

Contaminant P

TE

s Organic contaminants

PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pe

rson

al

care

pr

oduc

ts

Pat

hoge

n

Finishing waste



� Separation of wastes containing PTEs- if Cr is used for tanning, separation of waste

before tanning allows that wastes, (e.g. hairs and trimmings), to be used and

composted without contamination from the heavy metal.

� Substitution of Cr - to reduce contamination of tannery and leather waste some

substitutes are available:

� 20 to 35% of the fresh Cr input can be substituted by recovered chrome (IPPC,

2003b);

� Gluaraldehyde performs as a good alternative to Cr tanning giving better leather

properties than other alternatives such as iron-complexes, aluminium options,

and titanium and synthetic resins (Chakraborty et al., 2008); and

� Aluminium sulphate and vegetable tannin’s (e.g. Acacia nilotica ssp.tomentosa)

are also shown to have good leather properties (Haroun et al., 2008).

5.10.1.3. Treatment

Due to costs of treatments and pollution control Cr is often recovered and recycled.

Complete recovery of chrome salts can be achieved with ultrafiltration (Scholz and Lucas,

2003). Katsifas et al. (2004) studied the biodegradation of Cr shavings using Aspergillus

carbonarius isolate in solid state fermentation experiments. A 97% liquefaction of the

tannery waste was achieved and the liquid obtained was used to recover Cr. A

proteinaceous liquid was also obtained with the potential to be applied to land.

If high levels of Cr (in the proposed EU regulation for sludge this is 1000 mg/kg dry matter)

are present in the waste it must be disposed of and not used for landspreading. However,

Cr, Cd, and Pb concentrations all decrease during composting, probably due to leaching of

the mobile metals; but Cu and Zn do not leach (Haroun et al., 2007). Ahmed et al. (2007)

also reported loss of Cr during composting through leachate. Containing the compost to

collect the leachate is necessary in this case to avoid contaminating the composting site.

Anaerobic digestion of tannery waste is also possible. However, vegetable tanning agents

were shown to inhibit the methanogenic stage of anaerobic digestion of tannery waste,

while Cr tannins had much less effect (Bajwa and Forster, 1988).


5.10.2.1. Sources

All the organic chemicals used in the processes serve a purpose and cannot be simply

removed (IPPC, 2003b):

� biocides are used in the curing, soaking, pickling, tanning and post-tanning

processes;

� Halogenated organic compounds are established use in tanneries; however, they can

be substituted with one exception – the dry-degreasing of Merino sheepskins;


� Surfactants are used in processes such as soaking, liming, degreasing, tanning and

dyeing. The most used surfactant is nonylphenolethoxilate because of its emulsifying

property; and

� Complexing agents such as EDTA and NTA are used as sequestering agents.

The consumption level of the main process chemicals, tanning agents and auxiliary

chemicals for a conventional tanning process for salted, bovine hides is shown in Table 5.19.

Table 5.19 Level of chemicals used to process salted bovine hides (IPPC, 2003b)

Chemical consumption %

Standard inorganic (without salt from curing, acids, bases, sulphides,

ammonium-containing chemicals) 40

Tanning chemicals (chrome, vegetable and alternative tanning agents) 23

Finish chemicals (pigments, special effect chemicals, binders and

crosslinking agents) 10

Fat liquoring agents 8

Standard organic, not mentioned below (acids, bases, salts) 7

Organic solvents 5

Dyeing agents and auxiliaries 4

Enzyme 1

Surfactants 1

Biocides 0.2

Others (sequestering agents, wetting agents, complexing agents) ?

TOTAL 100


Upstream control measures to reduce organic compounds contamination in tannery and

leather waste are presented below.

� Restrict amount of organic compounds used- chemicals are used in excess to ensure

good penetration especially the beamhouse processes. All the treatments are

expensive and so the chemicals are recovered and reused. Up to 90% of beamhouse

chemicals and vegetable tannins can be recovered using microfiltration. This is an

effective approach to reduce contaminants going to the waste (Scholz and Lucas,

2003).

� Research of alternative treatments to find less persistent options- to achieve this

environmental risk assessment should be used with best available techniques.

Lazzeri et al. (2006) confirmed that mineral oils used in both tannery and textile

industries could be replaced by High Oleic Sunflower Oil (HOSO) which has a higher

biodegradability. To apply this change requires no modification of facilities.

� Substitution of the most harmful chemicals used during the tanning process- BATs

substitutes that are less harmful and can be used in the tanning industry are listed in

Table 5.20.


Table 5.20 Substances currently used and BATs substitutes (IPPC, 2003b) SUBSTANCE BAT SUBSTITUTE

Biocides Products with the lowest environmental and toxicological impact,

used at the lowest level possible e.g. sodium- or potassium-di-

methyl-thiocarbamate

Halogenated organic compounds They can be substituted completely in almost every case. This

includes substitution for soaking, degreasing, fat liquoring, dyeing

agents and special post-tanning agents

-Exception- the cleaning of Merino sheepskins

Organic solvents

(non-halogenated)

The finishing process and the

degreasing of sheepskins are the major

areas of relevance.

Finishing:

• Aqueous-based finishing systems

-Exception: if very high standards of topcoat resistance to wet-

rubbing, wet-flexing and perspiration are required

• Low-organic solvent-based finishing systems

• Low aromatic contents

Sheepskin degreasing:

• The use of one organic solvent and not mixtures, to facilitate

possible re-use after distillation

Surfactants

APEs such as NPEs e.g. alcohol ethoxylates, where possible

Complexing agents

EDTA and NTA EDDS and MGDA, where possible

Ammonium deliming agents Partially with carbon dioxide and/or weak organic acids

Dyestuffs De-dusted or liquid dyestuffs

• High-exhausting dyes containing low amounts of salt

• Substitution of ammonia by auxiliaries such as dye penetrators

• Substitution of halogenic dyes by vinyl sulphone reactive dyes

Fat liquoring agents Free of agents building up AOX

-Exception: waterproof leathers

• Applied in organic solvent-free mixtures or, when not possible,

low organic solvent mixtures

• High-exhausting to reduce the COD as much as possible

Finishing agents for topcoats, binders

(resins) and cross-linking agents

• Binders based on polymeric emulsions with low monomer

content

• Cadmium- and lead-free pigments and finishing systems

Others:

- Water repellent agents

- Brominated and antimony containing

flame retardant

Free of agents building up AOX

- Exception: waterproof leathers

• Applied in organic solvent-free mixtures or, when not possible,

low organic solvent mixtures

• Free of metal salts

- Exception: waterproof leathers

• Phosphate-based flame retardants

APEs – alkyl phenol ethoxylates

NPEs – nonylphenol ethoxylates

NTA – nitrilo triacetate

EDDS- ethylene diamine disuccinate

MGDA – methyl glycine diacetate

5.10.2.3. Treatment

Activated sludge and co-composting can be used to treat tannery sludge. However after

activated sludge treatment it was found that the dehairing sludge toxicity was not fully

removed. The resulting toxicity was suspected to be caused by chloride and ammonia (Vidal

et al., 2004). Another complication is that waste from dehairing does not compost by itself,


or with de-inking sludge from paper mill waste, but sewage sludge did improve the co-

composting treatment (Barrena et al., 2007).

Use of hair-save practices- hair can be removed by high organic chemical dissolving

processes or hair-save practices, which use less contaminant and produce a compostable

by-product. Treatment of the wastewater from dissolving hairs is more expensive so the

hair-save practices have become more popular and use less organic compounds (Barrena et

al., 2007).

5.10.3. Pathogens

5.10.3.1. Sources

Pathogens may be present on the hides and remnant flesh at the very early stages. The

chemicals and toxic environment of the tanning processes will eliminate pathogens, and

pathogens are not a high risk in this waste stream.

5.10.3.2. Treatment

If any pathogens survive, they will be reduced by composting.

5.10.4. Summary

Table 5.21 summarises the upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in the

tanning and leather waste. Upstream control measures judged more effective are presented

in bold.


Table 5.21 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in tannery and leather waste.


PTEs Chromium Tanning agent

Substitution of chromium High High

Chromium can be substituted by

biodegradable materials that are

already available.

Separate wastes that contain chromium High High Less effective than chosen

approach.

Organic

compounds

Biocides Animal treatment Use of biopesticides High High





ingredients.

AOX, organic

solvents,

complexing agents,

surfactants,

dyestuffs, fat

liquoring agents

Processes used

Restrict amounts of organic compounds used in

the processes. Medium High


approach.

Substitution of persistent chemicals. High High


chemicals by others less hazardous

reduces amount of organic

compounds in wastes. These are

already available.

Research of alternative treatments that use less

persistent contaminants. Low High

Several years might be needed for

the application of this measure.


Source

Production

Use

Food / drink additives

Animal

Bulk waste

Land Application

Processing waste

Processing


Contaminant

PT

Es


PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pe

rson

al

care

pr

oduc

ts

Pat

hoge

n

Packaging waste

Plant Packaging Cleaning chemicals

Waste water

Overproduction waste

5.11. Waste from food and drinks preparation

The food and drink industry produces product-specific wastes with different characteristics.

Some are primary production wastes e.g. dairy, sugar beet and brewery industries, and

some secondary from semi-processed products e.g. jam and confectionary. The waste

stream of the food and drinks production industry is complex but can be generalised for this

purpose (Figure 5.10).

Figure 5.10 Waste from food and drinks preparation stream

Darlington et al. (2009) describes a waste model applicable to the whole food industry using

five waste categories:

1. Bulk waste – the inedible parts of the raw ingredients from animals and plants.

2. Waste water – the cleaning, preparation and cooking water.

3. Processing wastes – the unused, spoiled or rejected waste from processing.

4. Packaging wastes – plastic, glass and paper waste.

5. Overproduction waste – end of line, unfit, or unsellable waste.

These five waste categories are used instead of each specific food and drink product line. A

separation is also evident between animal and plant derived waste. Animal waste falls under

the Animal By-products legislation (EU, 2002) and must be dealt with accordingly. This


section will not repeat investigating unprocessed animal products. Refer to livestock manure

(section 5.3) and abattoir waste (section 5.7) for contaminant sources from animal waste,

flesh, and blood.

5.11.1. PTEs

5.11.1.1. Sources

Some PTEs, such as Cd, Cu, Zn and Ni are present in vegetables. For example, potatoes,

tomatoes, spinach, and mushrooms contain Cd, and potatoes also contain Zn and Cu.

PTEs should not be a primary concern of the food and drink industry. However, high inputs

to soils have been found for Cd and Cu. A proportion is from the processing of some

vegetables, such as potatoes, tomatoes and mushrooms. PTEs in dyes and inks may enter

from packaging, and another minor source of PTEs is the inevitable wearing of machinery.


Upstream control measures for reducing the amounts of contaminants in waste from food

and drink production are presented below.

� Separate wastes - Sorting the packaging waste so that any with highly inked and

dyed material with metal content is kept separate would avoid it contaminating the

other waste streams. Also, the use of inks without metals would eliminate this

source. This is judged as the most effective approach for reducing PTEs

contamination in the final waste.

� For reducing contamination from the processing of vegetables, no upstream control

measures can be applied. However, this contamination is likely to only represent a

small proportion of PTE contamination.

� Maintain machinery in good condition – this would reduce any PTEs contamination

from the wearing of machinery. However, this would only represent a small

proportion of the contamination and would not be very effective.

5.11.1.3. Treatment

It would not be efficient to treat the waste packaging for the amount of metal present.


5.11.2.1. Sources

Very few dangerous chemicals and pollutants are used in food manufacture (Darlington et al.,

2009). Some cleaning chemicals, preservative chemicals, plastics for packaging, and

pesticides, insecticides and fungicides will be present (Mardikar and Niranjan, 1995).



Some upstream control measures for reducing organic contaminants in food and drink

waste are presented below.

� Environmental risk assessment of chemicals used – the environmental risk

assessment of preservatives and pesticides added to vegetables, and to detergents

and cleaning agents used in the food and drinks industry, would allow educated

choices on which chemicals to use and encourage research on alternatives. The use

of legislation, such as REACh, could enforce this measure. Practicality for this

approach is judged low since several years are still needed for legislation to be

enforced.

� Separating waste streams – this ensures that pesticides in vegetable washing and

cleaning chemicals do not contaminate the wastes from later in the process. This is

judged the most effective approach to reduce levels of organic compounds in the

final waste.

� Alternatives for pesticides – biopesticides are an alternative to these persistent

compounds. These are biodegradable pest management tools based on beneficial

microorganisms, nematodes or other safe, biologically based active ingredients. This

approach is the more effective way to reduce pesticide residues in vegetables.

5.11.2.3. Treatment

Anaerobic digestion and composting will breakdown some organic contaminants.

5.11.3. Pathogens

5.11.3.1. Sources

Pathogens are present in meat, eggs, plants and most foods. They cannot be avoided in food

industry waste.


The use of cleaning chemicals and hygienic conditions integral to food processing will limit

the pathogens during processing but not eliminate them. Therefore, the measure that can

be applied is shown below.

� Separation of the different wastes - keeping the packaging waste stream separate to

the food and drink waste streams, the animal waste streams separate to the

vegetable waste streams, and the raw separate from the processed streams will

minimize cross contamination.

5.11.3.3. Treatment


Waste of animal origin or waste that has come into contact with waste of animal origin must

be treated in an approved facility for category 3 animal by-products (EU, 2002). The facility

can either anaerobically digest or compost the waste but it must reach 70°C for one hour

and have a maximum particle size of 12mm. The plant material and parts of the packaging

waste can be digested too.

5.11.4. Summary


food and drink industry waste. Upstream control measures judged more effective are

presented in bold.


Table 5.22 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in the food and drink industry waste.


PTEs

Cadmium

Vegetables NA - - No approaches have been

identified.

Wearing machinery Maintain machinery in good conditions High Low Only a minor proportion of PTEs

would be reduced.

Packaging Separate the wastes from the different

processes. High High

An effective measure to keep the

different contaminants separated

in the different waste streams to

avoid cross contamination.

Copper

Vegetables NA - - No approaches have been

identified.

Wearing machinery Maintain machinery in good conditions High Low Only a minor proportion of PTEs

would be reduced.

Packaging Separate the wastes from the different






Organic

compounds

Surfactants, LAS Detergents and

cleaning products

Restrict amounts of organic compounds used in

the processes. Medium High


approach.

Substitution of persistent chemicals. High High


chemicals by others less hazardous

reduces amount of organic

compounds in wastes.

REACh Low High Several years might be needed for


Plastics Packaging Separate the wastes from the different






NA – non available


Table 5.22 (cont.) Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in the food and drink industry waste.


Organic

compounds Pesticides Vegetable washing

REACh Low High Several years might be needed for







ingredients.

Pathogens NA Food Separate the wastes from the different

processes High High







5.12. Waste from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture

The industry of fine chemicals1 includes the manufacture of dyes and pigments, plant health

products and biocides, pharmaceutical products, organic explosives, organic intermediates,

surfactants, flavours, plasticizers, etc (IPPC, 2006). Waste production from the manufacture

of pharmaceuticals (as a representation of fine chemicals) is generalised and illustrated in

Figure 5.11 (DoE, 1995).

Figure 5.11 Chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture waste stream

Figure 5.11 shows three types of waste:

1. Processing raw materials from plants, animals and fungi produces waste that can be

stabilised and used similarly to other animal and plant wastes.

2. Fermentation waste from primary processes is the main source of biomass


3. In smaller plants and plants with primary and secondary processes waste streams are

often mixed (DoE, 1995).

1

Fine chemicals are pure, single chemical substances that are commercially produced by chemical reactions

into highly specialized applications.

Source

Production

Use

Chemicals

Pre-processing waste

Land Application

Processing


Other disposal routes

Contaminant P

TE

s Organic contaminants

PO

Ps

Bul

k C

hem

ical

Pha

rma-

ceut

ical

s

Vet

erin

a-ry

dru

gs

Pes

ticid

es B

ioci

des

/ pers

onal

ca

re

prod

ucts

Pat

hoge

n

Plants, animals, fungi

Fermentation waste

Secondary processes Primary processes

Mixed and other waste


In the secondary processing of chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture, “bulking”

ingredients are used, e.g. starches and sugars to make the chemicals into pills and

medicines. The waste from these could also be used for soil amendment after digestion but

no evidence was available in the existing literature.

Hazardous waste from chemical and pharmaceutical manufacture is not considered viable

as an organic waste stream for land spreading. This may include test animals and plants,

highly contaminated wastes, and wastes that would inhibit the digestion processes (Gupta,

2006).

5.12.1. PTEs

5.12.1.1. Sources

PTEs may be added as ingredients for the product, e.g. mineral supplements, or may enter

from catalysts. The raw animal material could introduce small levels of PTEs.


Upstream control measures for the chemical and pharmaceutical industry are similar to

those that have been presented for other waste types, such as the animal manure (section

5.3). The practicality and effectiveness of those measures are judged for the chemical and

pharmaceutical waste industry and this information is presented on the summary (Table

5.23). These include:

� Separation of waste streams - this ensures that any with PTEs contamination do not

mix with less contaminated streams. It is in the nature of the industry to carefully

control the ingredients and contents of the processes, so it is assumed that wastes

with PTEs contamination could be identified and directed towards other disposal

options.

� Research on green chemistry techniques – these can be employed to find

alternatives to PTEs in the manufacturing industry, e.g. alternative catalysts (Clark,

2006).

5.12.1.3. Treatment

Waste streams for landspreading from this industry are commonly stabilised by anaerobic

digestion or composting which do not reduce PTEs levels.


5.12.2.1. Sources

The chemistry of fine organic intermediates shows an enormous diversity. However, the

number of operations and processes used are similar. These include charging/discharging of

reactants and solvents, inertisation, reactions, crystallisations, phase separations, filtrations,

distillation and product washing (IPPC, 2006).


The key environmental issues of this industry are emissions of volatile organic compounds,

wastewaters with potential high loads of non-degradable organic compounds, large

quantities of spent solvents and non-recyclable waste (IPPC, 2006). Pharmaceutical residues

might also be present in the final waste. Sources of organic compounds might also be

brought into this industry through animals, plant and fungi.


Upstream control measures applied for animal manures (section 5.3) and plant waste

(section 5.6) are also relevant for this waste stream. The practicality and effectiveness of

those measures are judged for the chemical and pharmaceutical waste industry and this

information is presented on the summary table and include:

� Separation of waste streams ensures maximised use of potential to spread to land

and less contamination. Knowing exactly what is in the waste stream from records of

the processes involved allows careful choice as to whether they can be used on soil.

This a practical approach since it is already in use and an effective measure to reduce

contamination in the final waste stream.

� Research into alternative pharmaceuticals and chemical treatments provide new

information about less persistent chemical options. This is achieved through green

chemistry techniques, environmental risk assessment and use of REACh data (Clark,

2006). However, in the manufacture of fine organic chemicals, the substitution of

chemicals by less persistent chemicals is very difficult. Therefore, BATs are to

segregate and pretreat the waste streams and dispose of mother liquors from

halogenations and sulphachlorinations processes (IPCC, 2006). This approach would

take several years to put in place since a lot of research is still needed.

5.12.2.3. Treatment

BAT for the manufacture of fine organic chemicals are the establishment of mass balances

for volatile organic compounds on a yearly basis, to carry out a detailed waste stream

analysis in order to identify the origin of the waste stream and a basic data set to enable

management and suitable treatment of exhaust gases, waste water streams and solid

residues (IPPC, 2006). Another BAT is the re-use of solvents as far as purity requirements

allow.

Waste is commonly stabilised using anaerobic digestion or composting. These treatments

digest some organic contaminants whilst other contaminants may inhibit the process e.g.

surfactants (Feitkenhauer and Meyer, 2002). Depending on the contents of the waste

stream, the optimum process can be chosen to maximise effect and minimise

contamination.


5.12.3. Pathogens

5.12.3.1. Sources

As discussed in previous sections, pathogens have diffuse sources that are not controllable.

They enter the process with raw material but will be eliminated as waste before reaching

the primary and secondary processing stages to avoid contamination of the product.


The preparation of the plants, animals, and fungi will most likely occur at separate sites than

the primary and secondary chemical processes. Therefore the waste streams can easily be

kept separate. Any pathogens used to test products will be carefully controlled as hazardous

materials by the industry and disposed of as such. Nevertheless, upstream control measures

to reduce pathogen contamination before entering this industry are the same as that for

plant waste (section 5.6) and for livestock manure (section 5.3). Practicality and

effectiveness for those measures are judged for the chemical and pharmaceutical waste

industry and this information is presented on the summary table to avoid repetition.

5.12.3.3. Treatment

Thermophilic treatment, either anaerobic digestion or composting will kill most pathogens.

5.12.4. Summary


chemical and pharmaceutical industry waste. Upstream control measures judged more

effective are presented in bold.


Table 5.23 Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry waste.


PTEs

Copper

Feedstufs

Reduce levels in feedstuffs High Medium Legislation has been applied and levels

remain too high.

Increase bioavailability in animal diet Medium High

With increased bioavailability of

copper and zinc in animal diet, then it

is likely that lower amounts are

needed in feedstuffs, which would

therefore effectively reduce levels in

manure. Zinc Use of combination between organic

and inorganic minerals formulations Low Medium

Research is only available for pigs and

more evidence is needed.

Reduce period of animal intake Low High More evidence needed.

All PTEs Processes used

Separate the wastes from the

different processes. High High

An effective measure to treat these

wastes in an appropriate way.

Green chemistry Low High Several years are needed and therefore

practicality is low for the present.

Organic

compounds

Veterinary

medicines

Prevention and



hazardous chemicals High Low

Would not greatly reduce amounts in

manure.

Restrict veterinary medicines to sick

animals High High

Restricting veterinary medicine use to

sick animals would greatly reduce the

amount of these organic compounds

from manures.

Improvement of animal husbandry

practices (e.g. less intensive rearing) Low Medium

Less intensive rearing is not a practical

approach.




attractive and several years of

research.


Table 5.23 (cont.) Upstream control measures for reducing contaminants in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry waste.


Organic

compounds

Pharmaceuticals Processes Separate the wastes from the




Pesticides Plant treatment



management tools based on

beneficial organisms and made with

biologically based active ingredients.


REACh Low High




Solvents Processes

REACh Low High








Pathogens

NA Animal faeces





manure.

Use of slotted floors for animal

housing Low Medium

Pathogens not greatly reduced.




compounds instead.

Fungi Plant Separate the wastes from the






5.13. Summary of Information The strategies judged most effective for each individual contaminant of concern for each

waste stream are summarised for PTEs, organic compounds and pathogens in Tables 5.24,

5.25 and 5.26, respectively. This information has been taken from the summaries at the end

of each waste stream section. Dredgings from inland waters have not been included in the

summary table since input to soil levels for all contaminants were much higher than for any

other material.

For PTEs, where inputs to soils following the application of different materials were

available and comparable for individual contaminants, materials with the highest PTEs input

to soils were selected to build the table.

For organic compounds, inputs to soil following application were not comparable between

the different materials. Therefore, for each individual contaminant, all materials that

contained the organic compound have been included in Table 5.25 since it could not be

judged which ones have the higher input to soils following landspreading.


Table 5.24 Summary table for the most effective measure to reduce PTEs contamination according to highest input material.

PTEs Waste type Major sources Potential upstream control Practicality Effectiveness Justification

Arsenic Wood, bark and other

plant waste

Wood

treatment

Separate woods according to

treatment received. High High

Separation of woods according to treatment

received e.g. SMARTWaste. This would increase

the re-use, recycle and composting of wood waste.

Cadmium

MSW Batteries Use of Cd-free batteries High High The use of Cd-free batteries is likely to greatly

reduce Cd in MSW and these are already available.

Paper and pulp waste Ink Use of metal-free inks High High

Using metal-free inks would reduce amount of

PTEs in the waste ink produced by a printer; in the

printed materials that are landfilled or incinerated;

and in the sludge created during de-inking in paper

recycling.

Food and drinks industry Packaging Separate the wastes from the

different processes High High

An effective measure to keep the different

contaminants separated in the different waste

streams to avoid cross contamination.

Chromium

Sewage sludge Car washes Car wash water treatment (GAC

filter) High High

GAC filters could possibly reduce Cr inputs into

wastewater treatment.

MSW Ink Use of metal free inks High High

Cr in paper is mainly from inks. Thus, the usage of

metal-free inks would greatly reduce levels for Cr

in MSW. Paper and pulp waste

Wood, bark and other

plant waste

Wood

treatment


treatment received High High




Textile industry Dyes Separate wastes that contain PTEs High High

Separation of dyeing and post-dyeing wastes from

the other waste streams reduces PTEs


Tannery and leather

industry Tanning agent Substitution of chromium High High

Chromium can be substituted by biodegradable

materials that are already available.

Copper

Sewage sludge Plumbing

corrosion



The use of plastic pipework would significantly

reduce amounts of Cu in sludge.

Livestock manure

Feedstuffs Increase bioavailability in animal

diet Medium High

With increased bioavailability of copper and zinc in

animal diet, then it is likely that lower amounts are

needed in feedstuffs, which would therefore

effectively reduce levels in manure.

Abattoir waste

Chemical and

pharmaceutical industry


Table 5.24 (cont.) Summary table for the most effective measure to reduce PTEs contamination according to highest input material.

PTEs Waste type Major sources Potential upstream control Practicality Effectiveness Justification

Copper

(cont.)

Paper and pulp waste Ink Use of metal-free inks High High




in the sludge created during de-inking in paper

recycling.

Wood, bark and other

plant waste

Wood

treatment






Food and drinks industry Packaging Separate the wastes from the





Mercury Gypsum Unknown NA - - NA

Nickel Drinking water sludge

Unknown NA - - NA Food industry

Lead

MSW

Batteries, wood

preservatives,

biocides

Recycling

(e.g. stewardship incentive

schemes)

High High Lead mainly comes from batteries for which there

are already available schemes for recycling.

Paper and pulp industry Ink Use of metal-free inks High High




in the sludge created during de-inking in paper

recycling.

Zinc

Sewage sludge Plumbing

corrosion



The use of plastic pipework would significantly

reduce amounts of Zn in sludge.

Livestock manure

Feedstuffs Increase bioavailability in animal

diet Medium High

With increased bioavailability of copper and zinc in

animal diet, then it is likely that lower amounts are

needed in feedstuffs, which would therefore

effectively reduce levels in manure.

Abattoir waste

Chemical and


Textile industry

Dyes

Flameproof

wool

Separate wastes that contain PTEs High High

Separation of dyeing and post-dyeing wastes from

the other waste streams reduces PTEs




Table 5.25 Summary table for the most effective measures to reduce organic compounds contamination according to input materials.

Organic

compound Waste type Major sources Potential upstream control Practicality Effectiveness Justification

AOX

Paper and pulp industry

Chlorine products

used in the

bleaching process

Use of non-chlorinated

compounds High High

Using Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) and Elementary

Chlorine Free (ECF) bleaching processes reduces

concentrations of chlorinated organic substances

in waste.

Tannery and leather

industry Processes used


chemicals. High High

Substitution of persistent chemicals by others less

hazardous reduces amount of organic compounds

in wastes. These are already available

Creosote,

preservatives,

micro-emulsion,

paint and stain,

and varnish

Wood, bark and plant

waste Wood treatment






Flame retardants

Sewage sludge Detergent

residues,

plasticizers,

personal care

products



The use of more biodegradable materials would

reduce levels for these organic compounds in

sludge. Some are already available and are

ecolabelled. The use of these materials would be

likely to significantly increase with extensive

public awareness campaigns.

MSW

Textile industry Processes used Substitution of persistent




in wastes. These are already available

LAS, DEHP, NP

Sewage sludge Detergent

residues,

plasticizers




reduce levels for these organic compounds in



likely to significantly increase with extensive

public awareness campaigns.

MSW

PAHs Sewage sludge Atmospheric


PAHs could possibly be reduced by using a catch

basin to recover sediments and therefore PAHs

sorbed onto these.

PCBs Sewage sludge

Atmospheric

deposition Measures already in place - -

Measures already in place (e.g. PCBs have been

banned). PCDD/Fs


Table 5.25 (cont.) Summary table for the most effective measures to reduce organic compounds contamination according to input materials.

Organic


Pesticides/Biocides

Wood, bark, and plant

waste Plant treatment


Biopesticides are biodegradable pest management

tools based on beneficial organisms and made

with biologically based active ingredients. Food and drink industry Vegetable washing

Textile industry Raw materials Careful selection of raw

materials. High High

Testing of raw material or incoming fibres before

accepting for processing.

Pharmaceuticals

Sewage sludge Urine and faeces Urine separation (NoMix

technology) Medium High

Separation between urine and faeces using the

NoMix technology would significantly reduce

levels of pharmaceuticals in sludge. Although this

approach would not be practical for all households

it could be locally applied (e.g. hospitals).

Sewage sludge Improper disposal


disposal High High


approach since they are already used as a method

to dispose off drugs safely. MSW

Chemical and

pharmaceutical industry Processes

Separation of the wastes from

the different processes. High High

An effective measure to treat these wastes in an

appropriate way.

Plastics Food and drinks industry Packaging Separate the wastes from the





Preparation

agents, knitting

oils

Textile industry Raw materials Careful selection of raw

materials. High High

Testing of raw material or incoming fibres before

accepting for processing.

Solvents

Tannery and leather






in wastes. These are already available.

Chemical and

pharmaceutical industry Processes

Separation of the wastes from

the different processes. High High


appropriate way.

Surfactants Sewage sludge Detergent residues Development of substitutes



reduce levels of these organic compounds in



likely to significantly increase with extensive public

awareness campaigns.


Table 5.25 (cont.) Summary table for the most effective measures to reduce organic compounds contamination according to input materials.

Organic


Surfactants

Textile industry

Processes used Substitution of persistent




in wastes. These are already available. Tannery and leather

industry

Complexing

agents,

antifoaming

agents,

Textile industry

Processes used Substitution of persistent




in wastes. These are already available. Tannery and leather

industry

Veterinary

medicines

Livestock manure Prevention and

treatment of

animals

Restriction of veterinary

medicines to sick animals High High

Restricting veterinary medicine use to sick animals

would greatly reduce the amount of these organic

compounds from manures. Abattoir waste

Dyestuffs, fat

liquoring agents

Tannery and leather






in wastes. These are already available.


Table 5.26 Summary table for the most effective measures to reduce pathogen contamination according to input materials.

Pathogens Waste type Major sources Potential upstream control Practicality Effectiveness Justification

NA

Livestock manures

Animal faeces Animals kept healthy and


Sick or stressed animals are more likely to shed

pathogens in their manure. Abattoir waste

Chemical and


Food and drink industry Food Separate the wastes from the

different processes High High




Fungi

Waste wood, bark, and

other plant material Plant, wood Carefully select raw material High High

This will avoid contamination of wastes with fungi

or plant pathogens.

Chemical and

pharmaceutical industry Plant




appropriate way.



5.14. Interpretation of information The individual upstream control options from Tables 5.24, 5.25, and 5.26, and information

presented in the waste stream sections can be interpreted into seven over-arching options

applicable to a number of the different waste streams.

1. Sort and separate waste streams to reduce cross contamination of wastes.

This upstream control measure has been identified as the most effective measure to reduce

PTEs in the food and drinks industry, to reduce organic contaminants in wood, bark and

plant waste, and to reduce both organic compounds and pathogens in the chemical and

pharmaceutical industry and in the food and drink industry.

For other waste types, although this measure has not been selected as the most effective,

contamination in the final waste can be reduced in all cases. For example, source separation

of municipal waste and separation of waste streams in industrial processes. The earlier

different waste streams are separated within the process, the less volume becomes

contaminated and needs treatment. Kerbside collections are increasing for MSW. Charging

for collection of unsegregated waste would improve the performance of kerbside collection.

But, this is only feasibly if the infrastructure to collect the separated waste is in place.

Another example is the textile and tannery and leather industries, where separating waste

streams can isolate contamination from specific processes such as tanning or dyeing.

However, waste stream separation may require infrastructure or production process

changes that may be possible for large companies but not for smaller ones.

2. Substitution of persistent compounds, where alternative (less persistent)

chemicals are currently available.

This upstream control measure has been selected to be highly practical and effective in

removing organic compounds contamination for the textile and tannery and leather

industry where more biodegradable options are already available in most cases.

This is also effective for reducing PTEs contamination in the paper and pulp, textile and

tannery and leather industries, and in MSW waste streams where paper, textile and leather

waste is present. Metal-free inks are currently available and can be used in the paper and

pulp industry. Regarding the textile and tannery and leather industry, demand for

metalliferrous dyes and inks are mostly for fashion rather than necessity so alternatives are

possible without harm. Vegetable tannins perform well giving good leather qualities

(Haroun et al., 2008), as does gluaraldehyde (Chakraborty et al., 2008), so there should be

no need for the continuation of chrome as a tannin. However, the whole process must be

considered because, for example, some vegetable tannins inhibit anaerobic digestion

methanogenosis (Bajwa and Forster, 1988). Other dyes may also cause contamination and

so a full risk assessment of the types of dyes should be performed so that the least

hazardous can be used.

For plant treatment, some pesticides can also be substituted by biopesticides, which are

already available to be used as pest management tools and these are biodegradable.

3. Use Best Available Techniques in production processes.


Using BAT means separating waste streams and applying environmental risk assessment

(ERA) data to choose the least hazardous substances. ERA provides data to allow intelligent

choices of substances to use in production processes. Comparisons can be made between

substances and how they behave and degrade in the environment. REACh (2007) provides

information on chemicals and their possible degradation products. REACh does not provide

information on pharmaceuticals. At present regulations state that all new medicines must

have an ERA but older ones do not (SI 1991/1914). This should be rectified and all substances

studied.

The PAS 100 compost quality protocol encourages the use of BAT to develop a product that

is no longer classed as waste. The Environment Agency is working with the Waste &

Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to develop more quality protocols for other waste

streams. Approaching the waste management process as a whole system and waste as a by-

product leads naturally into using BAT.

This strategy may require a change in thought processes in some sectors where quick profit

is the primary motivation.

4. Restrict use of PTEs in animal feed by increasing the bioavailability of copper and

zinc used, so that less is required.

There are already restrictions on how much copper and zinc can be added to animal feed,

but improving the bioavailability of the metals will allow the limits to be lowered further.

(EC, 2003; Revy et al., 2006). Studies have shown that a 35% reduction is possible without

depriving the animal of supplements.

5. Compost or thermophilic anaerobic digestion to reduce some pathogens.

Pathogen inputs are very difficult to control. Treatment is the best option for reducing

pathogens in the waste stream. Digestion is regulated by Animal by-product regulations (EU,

2002) and the quality protocol for compost, PAS100 (BSI, 2005). Unfortunately some

contaminants can interfere with the digestion process.

6. Use legislation to enforce these strategies.

Examples of legislation that already positively affect these processes are the Water

Framework Directive (EU, 2000b), the Animal By-products Regulations (EU, 2002), the

regulation on batteries (EC, 1991a), and the Packaging Waste Directive (EU, 1994).

Legislation can ensure that it is the producer’s responsibility for waste to have minimum

contamination and that BAT and ERA are not ignored. Redefining organic waste destined for

soil application as a “by-product” of processes would encourage consideration of its

content. For example by-products of the food and drink industry that go directly into further

food or drink processes are no longer classified as waste (AEA, 2007). There is always

resistance to change especially when it requires extra effort and resources. Changing the

approach to waste management will need legislation to back it up.


7. Education of the public.

Each individual has a very small impact but by far the greatest contamination comes from all

the individuals together. For example, metals in sewage sludge are the highest but each

individual contributes a tiny amount. The public choosing chlorine-free paper helped make

it a more common practice, and therefore reduced contamination levels in paper waste. By

educating the public to the fate of metals and chemicals and contents of their consumables,

they are able to make intelligent choices which can benefit the environment.

5.15. Significance The aim of this work was to identify potential options for reducing the contaminants in

organic waste streams that can be applied to land. Seven potential options have been

identified across eleven waste streams. However, the current limitations and additional

factors to be considered of these options must be acknowledged. These include:

� This project did not include quantification of contaminant level or reduction, and

no assessment of risk of each contaminant to soil. This will be important in any

adoption of the strategies in the field.

� These strategies are only viable if the cost of implementing them does not exceed

the gain. Costs of storing and/or transporting the bulky wastes limit their use.

Waste application is limited by agricultural seasons and so the waste requires

storage until it is the time to be spread. Smaller industries may not have facilities

for the amount of storage required on site, and neither the producer of the waste,

nor the farmer will want to incur the expense of storing it elsewhere. Similarly

transport is only feasible within a certain distance from the site of production, due

to expense and carbon footprint. Changing chemicals, waste handling procedures

and treatment technologies may result in added expense. Installation of

equipment (capital cost) and running it or transporting the waste to the treatment

site may be a barrier to uptake. However, in the case of anaerobic digestion the

process provides producers with a path to reduce and recover expenses from

waste management. Anaerobic digestion not only makes biogas to use as fuel, but

also stabilises and reduces the volume of waste. The reduced volume is easier to

store and transport.

� The value of the organic waste to the soil must also be acknowledged. The

nutrient levels and physical improvements are important qualities which vary with

waste type and in excess they themselves can become contaminants. An

approach that considers nutrient level, risk, cost, and the interest and

practicalities of each individual industry is necessary. This “whole system”

approach would improve these strategies and increase the significance of this

work.


5.16. The future We are living in rapidly changing times. Predicted climate change is driving changes in waste

management, and also in agriculture, energy production, and human behaviour. These

changes will impact the quantity and quality of organic wastes and their fate.

5.16.1. Waste Management

Reducing waste is higher on the waste hierarchy than recycling waste. Industries are actively

involved in reducing their waste streams, recovering chemicals, and minimising packaging

(Defra, 2007b). However efficient the technology, there will still be waste, but over the

coming years the volume and content will change.

5.16.2. Agriculture

Climate change predictions generally show the UK becoming warmer and drier (UKCIP,

2009). This will increase demand for irrigation. Industries that use a lot of water may change

their waste and effluent treatment processes to use this water as irrigation and couple it

with fertilisation. As fossil fuels become increasingly scarce the fertilisers made from them

will increase in price, so organic waste fertilisers will become more popular.

5.16.3. Energy Production

The move towards sustainable energy production has increased the number of incineration

and biogas plants in the UK. Incineration burns waste leaving ash with much less nutrient

value for land than the digestate from biogas plants. Recovering waste for energy is lower

down the waste hierarchy than recycling it to land. However, biogas production or

anaerobic digestion produces both gas for energy and a digestate for soil application.

5.16.4. Population behaviour

The public can react badly to the smell and appearance of organic waste spread onto land.

This issue will need to be addressed to gain support for increased landspreading.

The population has purchasing power e.g. public awareness of chlorine use in the paper

industry caused choice of chlorine free paper and motivated more change (Thompson et al.,

2001). If the population takes climate change and sustainability seriously they will be able

to drive changes in many industries, encourage Green Chemistry principles and reduce

contamination and environmental damage.

5.17. Discussion The most efficient way to reduce contamination in organic waste streams spread onto land

is not to introduce the contaminant in the first place. The use of PTEs and persistent organic

contaminants should be restricted especially as they are difficult to remove or treat once in

a process. It is difficult to restrict entry of pathogens into waste streams, and the most

efficient way to reduce them is thermophilic composting or anaerobic digestion.


Controlling the inputs to products that are all destined to become waste eventually, controls

the contents of the waste. It is important to increase the amount of data on chemical

substances, their fate, transformation products, and risks through ERA and REACh, so that

contamination can be minimised.

In a lot of industries, chemicals that are currently being used can be substituted by others

that do not pose environmental concern. Therefore, these persistent chemicals should be

substituted and this strategy could be enforced by the use of legislation, such as REACh.

Using best available techniques and best practices for waste management can be achieved

by considering waste a by-product of another process. Waste can no longer be dumped and

forgotten as it is becoming a valuable resource for fertiliser and energy. Legislation controls

the use of waste and Quality protocols can be used to ensure the use of BAT and ERA in

industry.

The public also need information about waste. The cumulative impact of each individual’s

waste habits is massive and needs to be controlled by educating the public to allow then to

make intelligent choices about products to buy and disposal techniques.

The information produced in this study provides a useful framework to identify sources and

controls of contaminants in waste streams. It will be added to a larger project including

quantification of contaminants and assessment of risk, so that priority strategies can be

identified. Further work is suggested towards a “whole system” approach that considers

benefits to soil and economics as well as risk.


6. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

This study has attempted to review information of the inputs and concentrations of a range

of contaminant types in a variety of waste types that could be applied to land. It has

attempted to establish the relative importance of different waste types in terms of the

inputs of specific contaminants to land and has explored ways in which contaminant levels

could be reduced, if deemed to be of concern. However, due to a lack of information in

many areas covered in the report, it is not yet possible to come up with definitive answers

on the risks of different waste materials to the functioning of land and on how best to

manage these. We therefore suggest that work in the future focuses on the following areas:

� Consideration of a wider range of contaminant types – this study has only explored a

handful of contaminants from different classes yet a much wider range of

contaminants is likely to be present. It would be valuable if an inventory of major

contaminants associated with different materials entering the waste stream was

developed and methods for quantifying levels of these be developed.

Transformation products should also be considered as in some instances these can

pose a greater risk than the parent compound.

� Consideration of a wider range of waste materials – this study has shown that good

information is available for only a few materials. We need to develop a better

understanding of the levels of contaminants in the other materials (e.g. compost and

digestate) as well as future waste materials that might be applied to land.

� Development of risk-based prioritisation schemes – it will be impossible to explore

the risks of all waste and contaminant types to ecosystem functioning. It may

therefore be appropriate to develop risk-based prioritisation approaches for

identifying contaminants and waste materials of most concern. Prioritisation

schemes of this type have been successfully applied in a number of other areas.

� Development of a better understanding on the amounts of wastes materials applied

to land – this work should consider both application rates in terms of tonnes/ha as

well as information on the spatial degree of application and frequency of application

to a site.

� Establish the risks to the functioning of land – for contaminants of concern, a

detailed assessment of the risks to land and associated water bodies is required.

These assessments should not be done on a single contaminant basis but should also

consider the potential for combination effects.

� Study the benefits of different waste types in soil as well as the broader costs of

waste material treatments and transport distances – this will then allow an informed

decision to be made as to the suitability of a particular management strategy.

� Integrate waste disposal into risk assessment schemes for synthetic substances – as

more waste is likely to be applied to land in the future, it seems timely to integrate


waste disposal aspects into environmental risk assessment schemes for synthetic

substances. This is already done for veterinary compounds in manure and slurry and

for some pharmaceuticals in sewage sludge.

� Perform a social study on public awareness of waste and where it goes, followed by

educational outreach about waste – ultimately this could assist in controlling the

inputs of selected contaminants to waste streams.


7. REFERENCE LIST

(1990) Environmental Protection Act 1990. UK.

(2003) Household Waste Recycling Act 2003. UK.

Adak G K, Long SM, O’Brien SJ (2002) Trends in indigenous foodborne disease and deaths, England

and Wales: 1992 to 2000. Gut 51 (6) 832-841.

ADAS (2002) Heavy metal content of animal manures and implications for soil fertility. Final report to

Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). Project Code: SP0516, London, UK.

ADAS, Imperial College, JBA Consulting (2005). Sources and impacts of past, current and future

contamination of soil. Final report for Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural

Affairs). Project Code: SP0547, London, UK.

ADAS, Rothamsted Research, WRc (2007). Effect of sewage sludge applications to agricultural soils

on soil microbial activity and the implications for agricultural productivity and long-term soil

fetility: Phase III. Final report for Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).

Project Code: SP0130, London, UK.

ADAS (2009) Heavy metal inventory, literature review of o/s practice and ALOWANCE runs. Ongoing

Defra project SP0569.

AEA (2007) Scoping studies to identify opportunities for improving resource use efficiency and for

reducing waste through the food production chain, Department for Environment Food and Rural

Affairs.

Ahmed M, Idris A, Syed Ome SR (2007). Behaviour and Fate of Heavy Metals in the Composting of

Industrial Tannery Sludge. The Malaysian Journal of Analytical Sciences 11(2): 340 - 350.

AINA (2007) Waste Management for Dredgings Operations: a good practice guide for navigation

authorities. Association of Inland Navigation Authorities (AINA), 2007. Available online at

http://www.aina.org.uk/work_programme/Wetdredgings.html

Aitken M, Sym G, Douglas JT, Campbell CD & Burgess SDJ (2002) Impact of Industrial Wastes and

Sheep Dip Chemicals Applied to Agricultural Land on Soil Quality. Final Report (15 October 2002).

SEPA, Stirling.

Allchin CR, Law RJ & Morris S 1999. Polybrominated diphenylethers in sediments and biota

downstream of potential sources in the UK. Environmental Pollution 105, 197–207.

Amlinger F., Bannick, C. G., Bourmeau, E., De Neve, S., Favoino, E., Feix, I., Gendebien, A., Gilbert, J.,

Givelet, M., Leifert, I., Marmo, L., Morris, R., Rodriguez Cruz, A., Ruck, F., Siebert, S., Tittarelli, F.

(2004a). Exogenous Organic Matter. Working Group on Organic Matter and Biodiversity. Brussels,

European Commission.

Amlinger F, Pollak M and Favoino E (2004b). Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used

as organic fertilisers. ENV.A.2./ETU/2001/0024. Final Report to DG Environment, Brussels.


ARC (1975) The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 1. Poultry, 2nd Edition, Technical

Reviews and Summaries, Agricultural Research Council, London (revised).

ARC (1980) The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux,

Farnham Royal, UK.

ARC (1981) The Nutrient Requirements of Pigs. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough,

London.

ARC (1983) Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Modified by MAFF.

Arikan OA, Sikora LJ, Mulbry W, Khan SU, Rice C, Foster GD (2006) The fate and effect of

oxytetracycline during the anaerobic digestion of manure from therapeutically treated calves.

Process Biochemistry, 41(7): 1637-1643.

Arikan OA, Sikora LJ, Mulbry W, Khan SU, Foster GD (2007) Composting rapidly reduces levels of

extractable oxytetracycline in manure from therapeutically treated beef calves. Bioresource

Technology, 98(1):169-176.

Bajwa HB, Forster CF (1988) The inhibition of anaerobic processes by vegetable tanning agents.

Environmental Technology 9(11): 1245 - 1256.

Barraoui D, Labrecque M, Blais JF (2008). Decontamination of sludge by the METIX-AC process. Part

I: Effects on sludge quality and leaching of chemicals. Bioresource Technology 99(5): 1433-1449.

Barrena R, Pagans E, Artola A, Vazquez F, Sanchez A (2007) Co-composting of hair waste from the

tanning industry with de-inking and municipal wastewater sludges. Biodegradation 18(3): 257-

268.

Beauchamp C J, Charest M-H, Gosselin A (2002) Examination of environmental quality of raw and

composting de-inking paper sludge. Chemosphere 46(6): 887-895.

Beauchamp C J, Simao-Beaunoir A-M, Beaulieu C, Chalifour F-P (2006). Confirmation of E. coli among

other thermotolerant coliform bacteria in paper mill effluents, wood chips screening rejects and

paper sludges. Water Research 40(12): 2452-2462.

Beck AJ, Alcock RE, Wilson SC, Wang M-J, Wild SR, Sewart AP & Jones KC 1995. Long-term

persistence of organic chemicals in sewage sludge-amended agricultural land: A soil quality

perspective. Advances in Agronomy 55, 345 –391.

Beconi-Barker MGR, Vidmar TJ, Hornish RE, Smith EB, Gatchell CL, Gilbertson TJ (1996) Ceftiofur

sodium: absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion in target animals and its

determination by high-performance liquid chromatography American Chemical Society.

Bellamy, KL, Chong, C and Cline, RA (1995) Paper sludge utilization in agriculture and container

nursery culture. Journal of Environmental Quality 24, 1074-1082.

Berset, J.D., and R. Holzer. 1995. Organic micropollutants in Swiss agriculture: Distribution of

polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in soil, liquid

manure, sewage sludge and compost samples; a comparative study. International Journal

Analytical Chemistry 59:145-165.


Binkley J, Simpson JA, McMahon P (2000) Characterisation of Textile Aerobic-activated Sludge Plant

by Conductivity and pH Measurement. Journal of the Textile Institute, 91(4): 523 - 529.

Bowen, E, Comber, S, Makropoulos, C, Rautiu, R, Ross, D, Rele, K, and Thornton, A (2003). Priority

hazardous substances, trace organic and diffuse pollution (Water Framework Directive):

screening study and literature review of quantities in sewage, sludge and effluent. 04/WW/17/2.

UKWIR (UK Water Industry Research) London, UK.

Boxall ABA, Fogg LA, Kay P, Blackwell PA, Pemberton EJ & Croxford A (2003) Prioritisation of

veterinary medicines in the UK environment. Toxicology Letters 142:207-218.

Boxall ABA, Fogg LA, Blackwell P, Kay P, Pemberton EJ, Croxford A (2004) Veterinary Medicines in the

Environment. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 180:1-91.

Braber, K. (1995). "Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste: A modern waste disposal option on

the verge of breakthrough." Biomass and Bioenergy 9(1-5): 365-376.

Braga O, Smythe GA, Shäfer AI, Feitz AJ (2005) Steroid Estrogens in ocean sediments. Chemosphere

61 (6):827-833

Brändli RC, Bucheli TD, Kupper T, Furrer G, Stadelmann FX, Tarradelas J (2005) Persistent organic

pollutants in source-separated compost and its feedstock materials – a review of field studies.

Journal EEnvironmental Quality 34(3):735-760.

Brändli RC, Bucheli TD, Kupper T, Furrer G, Stahel W, Stadelmann FX, Tarradelas J (2007) Organic

pollutants in swiss compost and digestate: 1. Polychlorinated biphenyls, polyciclic aromatic

hydrocarbons and molecular markers, determinant processes, and source apportionment.

Journal Environmental monitoring 9:465-474.

BSI (2005). Publicly available specification (PAS) 100:2005. Specification for composted materials.

British Standards Institution, UK.

BSI (2008). Draft of Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 110:2008. Specification for whole digestate,

separated liquor and separated fibre derived from the anaerobic digestion of source-segregated

biodegradable materials. British Standards Institution, UK.

Burch DGS (2003) Pharmacokinetics – Antimicrobial sensitivity and resistance. The Pig Journal

52:150-165.

Buser H-R, Poiger T, Müller MD (1998) Occurrence and fate of the pharmaceutical drug diclofenac in

surface waters: rapid photodegradation in a lake. Environ Sci Technol 32 (22):3449-3456

CalRecovery Europe Ltd (2007). Evaluating the effect of autoclaving on the rate of bioprocessing of

waste – characteristics of autoclaving condensate and autoclaved biodegradables from non-

segregated MSW. Report to the UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Waste

Implementation Programme. CalRecovery Europe Ltd, Leeds, UK.

Carbonell-Barrachina AA, Jugsujinda A, Burlo F, Delaune RD, Patrick Jr WH (2000) Arsenic chemistry

in municipal sewage sludge as affected by redox potential and pH. Water Research 34(1):216-

224.

Carlton-Smith CH, Coker EG (1985) Manurial value of septic-tank sludge on grassland. Grass and

Forage Science 40(4): 411-417.


CEC (2000). Commission Regulation Amending Directive 70/524 Concerning Additives in Feeding

Stuffs as Regards to Trace Elements (Draft). SANCO/367 rev2/2000.

CEC (2001). Commission recommendation on 7 November 2001 on the results of the risk evaluation

and the risk reduction strategies for the substances: acrylaldehyde; dimethyl sulphate;

nonylphenol; phenol, 4-nonyl-, branched; tert-butyl methyl ether (notified under document

number C(2001)3380) (2001/838/EC). Commission of the European Communities. Official Journal

of the European Communities L319/30-44.

CEC (2002). Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil protection. Commission of the European

Communities, Brussels 16.4.2002 COM (2002) 179 Final.

CEC (2008) Green paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union. Commission of the

European Communities. Available online at

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0811:FIN:EN:PDF.

CETOX (2000) Environmental and Health Assessment of Substances in Household Detergents and

Cosmetic Detergent Products. Centre for Integrated Environment and Toxicology (CETOX),

Environmental Project No. 615, Danish EPA.

Chakraborty D, Qudery A H, Azad M AK (2008). Studies on the Tanning with Glutaraldehyde as an

Alternative to Traditional Chrome Tanning System for the Production of Chrome Free Leather.

Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 43(4): 553 -558.

Chambers JV (1999). Waste management: animal processing. In Wiley Encyclopedia of food science

and technology. Francis, F.J. (Ed). Second Edition, pp 2601 – 2609. Wiley, US.

Chambers BJ, Nicholson FA, Soloman DR, Unwin RJ (1999) Heavy metal loadings from animal

manures to agricultural land in England and Wales. In: Proceedings of the Eight International

Conference on the FAO ESCORENA Network on Recycling of Agricultural, municipal and Industrial

Residues in Agriculture- RAMIRAN 98, pp 475-483.

Charonnat, C., Deportes, I., Feix, I., Merillot, J-M., 2001. Approche de la qualité des compostes de

déchets en France, resultat d´une enquête en 1998; ADEME editions, Paris, 2001.

Chapman PA, Siddons CA, Cerman Malo AT & Harkin MA (1997). A 1-year study of Escherichia coli

O157 in cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry. Epidemiol. Infect. 119:245-250.

Clark J H (2006). Green Chemistry: today (and Tomorrow). Green Chemistry 8: 17 - 21.

Clark JH, Summerton L, Smith E, Kampa E, Vidaurre R, Touraud E (2008) Eco-pharmacostewardship of

Pharmaceutical Products. KNAPPE project.

Clausse CA (2000). CCA removal from treated wood using a dual remediation process. Waste

Management & Research 18: 485-488.

Correia VM, Stephenson T, Judd SJ (1994) Characterisation of textile wastewaters - a review.

Environmental Technology, 15(10): 917 - 929.

CSL (2004) Pesticide Usage Report 197 - Mushroom Crops in Great Britain 2003. Report Ref PB10345.

Central Science Laboratory (CSL), York.


CSTEE (1999) Opinion on the toxicological characteristic and risks of certain citrates and adipates

used as a substitute for phthalates as plasticisers in certain soft PVC products. Scientific

Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) B2/JCD/csteeop/cit28999.D(99).

DG Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, Brussels, 28/9/99.

Dach J, Starmans DAJ, Eds. (2006). Electroremediation of heavy metals from liquid manure.

Technology for Recycling of Manure and Organic Residues in a Whole-Farm Perspective.Vol II,

Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences.

Daniels WM, House WA, Rae JE, Parker A (2000) The distribution of micro-organic contaminants in

river bed-sediment cores. The Science of the Total Environment 253:81-92.

Darlington R, Staikos T, Rahimifard S (2009). Analytical methods for waste minimisation in the

convenience food industry. Waste Management 29(4): 1274-1281.

Daughton C, Ternes T (1999) Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: agents

of subtle change? Environ Health Perspect 107: 907-938.

Davis RD, Rudd C (1999) Investigation of the criteria for and guidance on the landspreading of

industrial wastes. Environment Agency R&D Technical Report P193. Environment agency,

Swindon, UK.

Davis GA, Turner E (2009) Safe substitutes at home: non-toxic household products. University of

Tennessee – Knoxville Waste Management Institute.

Defra (2003) Guidance on Blood collection and storage at slaughterhouses from 1st May 2003.

Available online at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/blood/bloodguidance.pdf

Defra (2004a). The First Soil Action Plan for England: 2004-2006. Defra publication PB 9441.

Defra (2004b) Voluntary Agreement – Risk Reduction for Nonylphenol, Nonylphenol Ethoxylates,

Octylphenol and Octylphenol Ethoxylates by Chemical Supply Industry and Downstream Users.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London.

Defra (2005a) Chemical Stakeholder Forum List of Chemicals of Concern. July 2005.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/chemicals/csf/concern/list.htm

Defra (2005b) Production of Mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus) in Great Britain for the Year 2003.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), National Statistics 3rd March 2005.

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/mushroom.pdf

Defra (2007a) Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs: e-Digest Environment Statistics.

Available online at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/waste/alltables.htm

Defra (2007b) Waste Strategy for England 2007. F. a. R. A. Department for Environment. Norwich,

HMSO.

Defra. (2007c) Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs: e-Digest Environment Statistics.

Available online at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/waste/alltables.htm.


Defra (2007d). Mechanical Biological Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste. F. a. R. A. Department for

Environment. london, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Defra (2009). Department fro Environment Food and Rural Affairs: Environment Protection:

Recycling and Waste. Available online at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/index.htm.

DETR (2000). Monitoring and assessment of peat and alternative products for growing media and

soil improvers in the UK (1996-1999), Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions

(DETR), September 2000, ISBN 1 85112 431 4.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606225

.pdf

De Wolfe, W. and T. Feijtel (1997): Terrestrial risk assessment for linear alkyl benzene sulfonate (LAS)

in sludge-amended soils: a literature review. Submitted Proceedings Specialty Conference

“Management and fate of toxic organics in sludge applied to land”, Copenhagen, April 30 – May

2, 1997.

Dillon, G (1997) Application guide to waterworks sludge treatment and disposal. WRc report No

TT016 (restricted distribution) as cited in WRc CO4953-2/11768-1 July 2001.

DoE (1995). DOE Industry profile: Sewage works and sewage farms. Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.

DoE (1996a) Code of practice for agriculture use of sewage sludge. Department of the Environment.

Available online at

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/waterquality/sewage/documents/sludge-

cop.pdf

DoE (1996b) Industry Profile Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Works. Department of the Environment.

DOE (1996c) Textile Works and Dye Works. Department of the Environment.

Droppo, I.G., S.N. Liss, D. Williams, T. Nelson, J. Jaskot and B. Trapp. 2009. The dynamic existence of

waterborne pathogens within river sediment compartments – Implications for water quality

regulatory affairs. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(6): 1737-1743.

EA (2005) Consultation on Proposed Changes to the UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers

(PRTRS) for 2005 to 2007. Environment Agency, Bristol.

EA (2007) Personal communication with the Environment Agency. Concentrations of heavy metals

in biosolids are from England and Wales samples collected for a sewage sludge survey for the

Environment Agency.

EA (2008a) Biowaste challenges and opportunities in the coming decade. Available online at

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/57795.aspx?page=7&month=4&year=2008

EA (2008b) Prioritisation of pharmaceuticals of possible environmental concern. R&D technical

report, UK.

EA (2009). Position statement: Sustainable management of biowastes. Available online at

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/overarching_2010742.pdf


EC (1986) Council Directive of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular

the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (86/278/EEC). Official Journal of the European

Communities, No L 181/6-12

EC (1991a). Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators

containing certain dangerous substances. 91/157/EEC. Council of the European Communities,

Official Journal of the European Communities.

EC (1991b) Council directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.

Council of the European Communities. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 135:40-

52.

EC (2000a). List of Wastes, Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000. Council of the

European communities, Official Journal of the European Communities.

EC (2000b) Working Document on Sludge – 3rd

draft. European Commission, ENV.E.3/LM, Brussels.

Available online at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/sludge_en.pdf

EC (2001). Working document on Biological treatment of biowaste – second draft. European

Commission, Directorate-General Environment, Brussels. Available online at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/facts_en.htm

EC (2003) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1334/2003 of 25 July 2003 amending the conditions for

authorisation of a number of additives in feedingstuffs belonging to the group of trace elements.

Official Journal of the European Communities L187, 11pp.

EC (2006) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18

December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of

Chemicals (REACH).

EC (2009) Regulation (EC) No66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25

November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel. Official Journal of the European Union L27, 19pp.

Edmeades DC (2003). The long-term effects of manures and fertilisers on soil productivity and

quality: a review. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 66 (2): 165-180.

Eljarrat E and Barceló D (2003). Priority lists for persistent organic pollutants and emerging

contaminants based on their relative toxic potency in environmental samples. Trends in

Analytical Chemistry 22, 655-665.

Eljarrat E and Barceló D (2004). Toxicity potency assessment of persistent organic pollutants in

sediments and sludges. In: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry Vol 5 Part 1 - Emerging

Organic Pollutants in Wastewater and Sludge. Ed. D. Barceló. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, ISBN 3 540

21365 1.

Elliott A, Mahmood T (2007) Pretreatment technologies for advancing anaerobic digestion of pulp

and paper biotreatment residues. Water Research 41(19): 4273-4286.

Elving J (2009) Pathogen inactivation and regrowth in organic waste during biological treatment.

Licentiate Thesis, Department of Biomediacla Sciences and veterinary Public Health, Swedish

university of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala 2009.


Enviros (2007). Mechanical heat treatment of municipal solid waste. Report to the UK Department of

Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Waste Implementation Programme, Enviros Consulting Ltd,

London, UK.http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/wip/newtech/pdf/mht.pdf

EPCEU (2003) Directive 2003/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February

2003 amending for the 24th time Council Directive 76/769/EEC. The European Parliament and the

Council of the European Union.

Erhardt W, Prüeβ A (2001) Organic Contaminants in Sewage Sludge for Agricultural Use. Final

Report. Available online at

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/pdf/organics_in_sludge.pdf

Eriksson E, Christensen N, Schmidt JE, Ledin A (2008) Potential priority pollutants in sewage sludge.

Desalination 226(1-3):371-388

EU (1994). European Parlianment and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on Packaging

and Packaging Waste. 94/62/EC. T. E. P. a. t. C. o. t. E. Union, Official Journal of the European

Union.

EU (1999) Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on th Landfill of Waste. Official Journal of

the European Communities.

EU (2000a). Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December

2000 on the Incineration of Waste. Official Journal of the European Communities.

EU (2000b). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000

Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. 2000/60/EC. T. E. P.

a. t. C. o. t. E. Union, Official Journal of the European Parliament.

EU (2002). Animal By-products Regulation (EC 1774/2002). T. E. Parliament. Brussels, The

OfficialJournal of the European Parliament.

EU (2003). Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003

on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). 2002/96/EC. T. E. P. a. t. C. o. t. E. Union,

Official Journal of the European Union.

EU (2008) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November

2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. Official Journal of the European Union.

Feitkenhauer H, Meyer U (2002). Intermediate accumulation and efficiency of anaerobic digestion

treatment of surfactant (alcohol sulfate)-rich wastewater at increasing surfactant/biomass ratios.

Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology 77(9): 979-988.

Ferrer I, Heine CE, Thurman EM (2004) Combination of LC/TOF-MS and LC/Ion trap MS/MS for the

identification of diphenhydramine in sediment samples. Anal Chem 76:14378-1444.

Fiona Nicholson Personal communication

FoE (2003) Commercial and industrial waste. Friends of the Earth Briefing on December 2003,

London. Available online at

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/commercial_and_industrial.pdf


FSA (Food Standards Agency; 2004). Survey of metals and other elements. Food Survey Information

Sheet 48/04. March, 2004.

Gea T, Artola A, Sanchez A (2005). Composting of de-inking sludge from the recycled paper

manufacturing industry. Bioresource Technology 96(10): 1161-1167.

Gendebien A, Carlton-Smith C, Izzo M, and Hall JE (1999). UK Sewage Sludge Survey - Regional

Presentation. Environment Agency, Report P 2/065/1, Bristol, UK.

Gendebien A, Ferguson R, Brink J, Horth H, Sullivan M, Davis R, Brunet H, Dalimier F, Landrea B,

Krack D, Perot J, Orsi C (2001). Survey of wastes spread on land – Final report to the European

Commission, Directorate-general for Environment, Report No CO 4953-2.

Gibbs P, Muir I, Richardson S, Hickman G, Chambers B (2005) Landspreading on agricultural land:

nature and impact of paper wastes applied in England and Wales. Environment Agency, Report

No SC030181/SR. Bristol, UK.

Göbel A, Thomsen A, McArdell CS, Joss A, Giger W (2005) Occurrence and sorption behavior of

sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim in activated sludge treatment. Environ Sci Technol

39: 3981-3989.

Golet EM, Strehler A, Alder AC, Giger W (2002) Determination of fluoroquinolone antibacterial

agents in sewage sludge and sludge-treated soil using accelerated solvent extraction followed by

solid-phase extraction. Anal Chem 64 (21): 5455-5462.

Greenpeace (2007) Cleaning up our chemical homes: changing the market to supply toxic-free

products. Second edition, February 2007.

Groeneveld E & Hébert M 2005. Dioxins, furans, PCBs and PAHs in eastern Canada compost.

Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec, Service de l’assainissement agricole et des activités de

compostage. http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/Compost%20DF%20PAH%20PCB%20v2.pdf

Gupta SK, Gupta SK, Hung YT (2006) Treatment of Pharmaceutical Wastes. Waste Treatment in the

Process Industries. L. K. Wang, Hung, Y. T., Lo, H. H., Yapijakis, C. Boca Raton, CRC Press.

Haller MY, Muller SR, McArdell CS, Alder AC & Suter MJ-F (2002) Quantification of veterinary

antibiotics (sulfonamides and trimethoprim) in animal manure by liquid chromatography– mass

spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 952 111–120.

Han FX, Banin A, Su Y, Monts DL, Plodinec MJ, Kingery WL, Triplett GE (2002). Industrial age

anthropogenic inputs of heavy metals into the pedosphere. Naturwissenschaften, 89:497-504.

Haroun M, Khirstova P, Abdallah G, Tony C (2008). Vegetable and Aluminium Combination Tannage:

Aboon Alternative to Chromium in the Leather Industry. Suranaree Journal of Science and

Technology 15(2): 123 -132.

HERA (2004) Human and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) on Ingredients of European

Household Cleaning Products 2004. LAS Linear Alkylbenzene Sulphonate (CAS No. 68411-30-3)

Version 2.0. HERA, Brussels.

Hickman G, Chambers B, Moore T (2009) Managing farm manures for food safety – Guidelines for

growers to reduce the risk of microbiological contamination of ready-to-eat crops. Food

Standards Agency, UK.


Hobbs SJ (1989) Acquisition and use of data for assessment of the environmental impact of

colorants. Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists, 105(10): 355-362.

Hogg D, Barth J, Favoino E, Centemero M, Caimi V, Amlinger F, Devliegher W, Brinton W, Antler S

(2002) Comparison of Compost Standards Within the EU, North America and Australasia, Main

Report, published by. The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), Oxon.

http://www.wrap.org.uk/reports_index.asp?ReportID=117&MaterialID=8

Horstmann M, McLachlan M ( 1994) Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in

textiles and their transfer to human skin, sewage sludge and

other matrices. Organohalogen Compounds, 20: 251-254.

Houot S, Clergeot D, Michelin J, Francou C, Bourgeois S, Caria G, Ciesielski H (2002) Agronomic value

and environmental impacts of urban composts used in agriculture. p. 457–472. In H. Insam,

N.Riddech, and S.Klammer (ed.)Microbiology of composting. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Houot S, Verge-Leviel C, Le Villio M, Clergeot D (2003) Influence of the stability of the compost

organic matter on the decay of organic pollutants during composting and in soil after compost

application. In: Amlinger, F., Nortcliff, S., Weinfurtner, K., Dreher, P. Applying Compost – Benefits

and Needs, Proc. of a seminar 22 – 23 November 2001, Brussels, Vienna.

HRI (2002) Microbial degradation of pesticides in soil. Horticulture Research International ( HRI)

Warwick, DEFRA project PL0550.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/PL0550/PL0550_2009_FRP.doc

HSDB (2000) Hazardous Substances Data Bank. (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov)

Hutchison ML, Walters LD, Avery SM, Synge BA & Moore A (2004). Levels of zoonotic agents in

British livestock manures. Lett. App. Microbiol, 39, 207-214.

IC Consultants (2001). Pollutants in urban waste water and sewage sludge. Final report for the

European Commission. Directorate-General Environment, Brussels.

IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control; 2001) Reference document on best available

techniques in the pulp and paper industry. December 2001. European Commission.

IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control; 2003a) Reference document on best available

techniques for the textiles industry. February 2003. European Commission.

IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control; 2003b) Reference document on best available

techniques for the tanning of hides and skins. February 2003. European Commission.

IPPC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control; 2006) Reference document on best available

techniques for the manufacture of organic fine chemicals. August 2006. European Commission.

Jenkins D, Russel LL (1994) Heavy metals contribution of household washing products to municipal

wastewater. Water Environment Research, 66(6):805-813.

Jondreville C, Revy PS, Dourmard JY (2003) Dietary means to better control the environmental

impact of copper and zinc by pigs from weaning to slaughter. Livestock Production Science 84(2):

147-156.


Jones, KC and Northcott, GL. (2000). Organic Contaminants in Sewage Sludges: A Survey of UK

Samples and a Consideration of their Significance. Department of the Environment, Transport

and the Regions. Water Quality Division.

Johnson A , Jürgens M (2003) Endocrine active industrial chemicals: Release and occurrence in the

environment . Pure & Appied Chemistry 75(11/12), 1895-1904.

Karvelas M, Katsoyiannis A, Samara C (2003) Occurrence and fate of heavy metals in the wastewater

process. Chemosphere, 53:1201-1210.

Katsifas EA, Giannoutsou E, Lambraki M, Barla M, Karagouni AD (2004) Chromium recycling of

tannery waste through microbial fermentation. Journal of Industrial Microbiol Biotechnol 31: 57-

62.

Kearney TE, Larkin MJ, Frost JP, Levett PN (2008) Survival of pathogenic bacteria during mesophilic

anaerobic digestion of animal waste. Journal of applied microbiology 75(3): 215-219

Kinney CA, Furlong ET, Zaugg SD, Burkhardt MR, Werner SL, Cahill JD, Jorgensen GR (2006) Survey of

organic wastewater contaminants in biosolids destined for land application. Environ Sci Technol

40 (23):7207-7215.

Koch HM, Drexler H, Angerer J (2003a) An estimation of the daily intake of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

(DEHP) and other phthalates in the general population. International Journal of Hygiene and

Environmental Health 206:1-7.

Koch HM, Rossbach B, Drexler H, Angerer J (2003b) Internal exposure of the general population to

DEHP and other phthalates—determination of secondary and primary phthalate monoester

metabolites in urine. Environmental Research 93:177-185.

Koeleman E (2007) Minerals in feed: Less is more. Pig Progress, 23 (6): 11-13.

Kritzer P, Dinjus E (2001) An assessment of supercritical water oxidation (SCWO): Existing problems,

possible solutions and new reactor concepts. Chemical Engineering Journal 83(3): 207-214.

Kuepper, G. (2003). Manures for organic crop production. Appropiate Technology Transfer for Rural

Areas (ATTRA). Available online at attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/manures.pdf

Kümmerer K (2004) Pharmaceuticals in the Environment: Sources, Fate, Effects and Risks, 2nd Ed.

Springer, New York.

Kupper T, Brandli RC, Bucheli TD, Stampfli C, Zenneg M, Berger U, Edder P, Pohl M, Niang F, Iozza S,

Muller J, Schaffner C, Schmid P, Huber S, Ortelli D, van Slooten KB, Oehme M, Mayer J, Bachmann

H-J, Stadelmann FX, Tarradelas J (2006) Organic pollutants in compost and digestate: occurrence,

fate and impacts. In Kraft E, Bidlingmayer W, de Bertoldi m, Diaz LF, Barth J (eds)Proceedings of

the international conference ORBIT 2006 Biological Waste Management – from local to Global,

13th

to 15th

of September 2006; Weimar. Pp 1147-1156.Available online at www.bafu.admin.ch/

Lasaridi K, Protopapa I, Kotsou M, Pilidis G, Manios T, Kyriacou A (2006) Quality assessment of

composts in the Greek market: The need for standards and quality assurance. Journal of

Environmental management 80(1):58-65.

Lazzeri L, Mazzoncini M, Rossi A, Balducci E, Bartolini G, Giovanelli L, Pedriali R, Petroselli R,

Patalano G, Agnoletti G, Borgioli A, Croce B, D’Avino L (2006) Biolubricants for the textile and


tannery industries as an alternative to conventional mineral oils: An application experience in the

Tuscany province. Industrial Crops and Products 24(3): 280-291.

Lecloux A (2004) Hexachlorobutadiene – Sources, environmental fate and risk characterisation. Euro

Chlor, Brussels. (www.eurochlor.org)

Leschber, R. (2006). Background values in European soils and sewage sludges-Part 1-Evaluation of

the relevance of organic micro-pollutants in sewage sludge. Gawlick, BM and Bidoglio, European

Commission, Report G. EUR 22265 EN. 2006. Ispra, Italy.

Letcher RJ (2003) The state-of-the-science and trends in brominated flame retardants in the

environment: present knowledge and future directions. Environment International 29, 663 – 664.

Lienert J, Larsen TA (2010) High acceptance of urine source separation in Seven European Countries:

a review. Environmental Science and Technology, 44(2):556-566.

Litz N (2002) Some investigations into the behaviour of pentabromodiphenyl ether (PeBDE) in soils.

Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 165:692-696.

Long JLA, House WA, Parker A, Rae JE (1998) Micro-organic compounds associated with sediments in

the Humber rivers. The Science of the Total Environment 210-211:229-253.

López de Alda MJ, Gil A, Paz E, Barceló D (2002) Occurrence and analysis of estrogens and

progestogens in river sediments by liquid chromatography- electrospray-mass spectrometry.

Analyst 127: 1299-1304.

Madsen T, Kristensen P, Samsö-Petersen L, Törslöv J, Rasmussen J O (1997) Application of sludge on

farmland - quality objectives, level of contamination and environmental risk assessment.-

Specialty conference on management and fate of toxic organics in sludge applied to land.

Copenhagen, 30 April - 2 may 1997.

Mardikar SH, Niranjan K (1995). Food Processing and the Environment. Environmental

Management and Health 6(3): 23 - 26.

Margni M, Jolliet O, Rossier D, Crettaz P (2002) Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides on human

health and ecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93: 379-392.

McIntyre, A. & Lester, J. (1982). Polychlorinated Biphenyl and Organochlorine Insecticide

Concentrations in Forty Sewage Sludges in England. Environmental Pollution Series B, 3: 225-230.

McIntyre, A. & Lester, J. (1984). Occurrence and distribution of persistent organochlorine

compounds in U.K. sewage sludges. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 23(4): 397-415.

McLachlan MS, Horstmann M and Hinkel M (1996) Polychorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and

dibenzofurans in sewage sludge: sources and fate following sludge application to land. The

Science of the Total Environment 185, 109-123.

Metre PC, Mahler BJ (2005) Trends in Hydrophobic Organic Contaminants in Urban and Reference

Lake Sediments across the United States, 1970−2001. Environmental Science and Technology,

39(15):5567-5574.

Miao X-S, Yang J-J, Metcalfe C (2005) Carbamazepine and its metabolites in wastewater and in

biosolids in a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Environ Sci Technol 39: 7469-7475.


Micic V. and T. Hofmann (2009). Occurrence and behaviour of selected hydrophobic alkylphenolic

compounds in the Danube River. Environmental Pollution 157(10): 2759-2768.

Mittal, G.S. (2007). Regulations related to land-application of abattoir wastewater and residues.

Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. Invited Overview No 10, Vol IX. July,

2007.

Mittal, G.S. (2004). Characterization of the effluent wastewater from abattoirs for land application.

Food Reviews international, 20:229-256.

Monteiro SC, Boxall ABA (2010) Fate and occurrence of human pharmaceutical in the environment.

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Vol 202: 53:143.

NAEI 2003. UK Emissions of Air Pollutants 1970 to 2001, August 2003. Available online at

http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/reports/cat07/naei_report_1970-2001.pdf

NAEI (2009) National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. Available online at

http://www.naei.org.uk

Napim, 2010. Metals in inks. National Association of printing Ink manufacturers (NAPIM. Assessed

the 23rd September 2010. Available online at:

http://www.napim.org/PublicArea/Printers/MetalsInk.aspx

Nicholls, C. R., Allchin, C. R., & Law, R. J. (2001). Levels of short and medium chain length

polychlorinated n-alkanes in environmental samples from selected industrial areas in England and

Wales. Environmental Pollution, 114(3): 415-430.

Nicholson FA, Chambers BJ (1997) Heavy metal and nutrient balances for pig and poultry production

systems. Final report to MAFF Rural and Marine Environment Division for Project SP0119.

Nicholson FA, Hutchison ML, Smith KA, Keevil CW, Chambers BJ & Moore AA (2000). A study of farm

manure applications to agricultural land and an assessment of the risks of pathogen transfer into

the food chain. Report to MAFF. Joint Food Safety and Standards Group (now Food Standards

Agency), Project FS2526.

Nicholson FA, Chambers BJ (2001) Heavy metal and nutrient balances for pig and poultry production

systems. Final report to MAFF Rural and Marine Environment Division for Project SP0129.

Nicholson FA, Chambers BJ, Moore A, Nicholson RJ, Hickman G (2007) Assessing the risks of

pathogen transfer from livestock manures into the food chain. Water and Environmental Journal,

18(3):155-160.

Noble R, Roberts SJ (2004) Eradication of plant pathogens and nematodes during composting: A

review. Plant pathology, 53:548-568.

O’Connor GA, Elliot HA, Bastas NT, Bastian RK, Pierzynski GM, Sis RC, Smith JE (2005) Sustainable

land application. Journal of environmental quality 37:7-17.

OECD (2004) Emission Scenario Document On Textile Finishing Industry (jt00166691) Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD Series On Emission Scenario Documents

Number 7 ENV/JM/MONO(2004)12.


OECD (2005) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) SIDS Linear

Alkylbenzene Sulphonate (LAS) SIDS Initial Assessment Form for 20th SIAM. Paris, France, April.

(www.lasinfo.org).

Ottosen LM, Pedersen AJ, Hansen HK, Ribeiro AB (2007) Screening the possibility for removing

cadmium and other heavy metals from wastewater sludge and bio-ashes by an electrodialytic

method. Electrochimica Acta, 52:3420-3426.

Papadimitriou EK, Barton JR, Stentiford EI (2008). Sources and levels of potentially toxic elements in

the biodegradable fraction of autoclaved non-segregated household waste and its

compost/digestate. Waste Management Research, 26:419-430.

Patterson DA, Boxall A, Cooper C, Sinclair C, France B, Thornton AJ (2004). Review of Methods for

Reducing Sheep Dip Chemicals Released from the Textiles Industry. E. Agency. Bristol,

Environment Agency.Paulsrud, B., Wien, A., Nedland, K. T., 1997. Environmental pollutants in

Norwegian compost and manure (in Norwegian). SFT-report 97.26. Norwegian State Pollution

Control Authority, Pb 8100 Dep, N-0032.

Partl H and Cornander I (2006) Organics from mechanical-biological treatment (MBT) facilities:

International standards, applications and controls. The Waste Management Association of

Australia. Report no: NS03039. Sydney, Australia.

Pepperel R, Massanet-Nicolau J, Allen VM, Buncic S. (2003). Potential for spread of some bacterial

and protozoan pathogens via abattoir wastes applied on agricultural land. Food Protection

trends, 23:315-325.

Petersen SO, Sommer SG, Beline F, Burton C, Dach J, Dourmad JY, Leip A, Misselbrook T, Nicholson F,

Poulsen HD, Provolo G, Sørensen P, Vinneras B, Weiske A, Bernal M-P, Böhm R, Juhász C, Mihelic

R (2007) Recycling of livestock manure in a whole-farm perspective. Livestock Science 112(3):

180-191.

PITA (2009) Paper Industry Technical Association: Factsheets. Retrieved 04/09/09, from

http://pita.co.uk/factsheets/.

Pokhrel D , Viraraghavan D (2004). Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater--a review. Science

of The Total Environment 333(1-3): 37-58.

Rashid MT, Barry D, Goss M (2006) Paper mill biosolids application to agricultural lands: benefits and

environmental concerns with special reference to situation in Canada. Soil and Environment

25(2): 85-98.

Revy PS, Jondreville C, Dourmard JY, Nys Y (2006). Assessment of dietary zinc requirement of

weaned piglets fed diets with or without microbial phytase. Journal of Animal Physiology and

Animal Nutrition 90(1-2): 50-59.

Ribeiro AB, Mateus EP, Ottosen LM, Bech-Nielsen G (2000). Electrodialytic Removal of Cu, Cr, and

As from Chromated Copper Arsenate-Treated Timber Waste. Environmental Science &

Technology 34(5): 784-788.

Richard TL and Woodbury PB (1998) Municipal Solid Waste composting: Strategies for separating

contaminants. Cornell Waste Institute, Centre for the Environment. New York, US.


Robinson T, McMullan G, Marchant R, Nigam P (2001) Remediation of dyes in textile effluent: a

critical review on current treatment technologies with a proposed alternative. Bioresource

Technology 77(3): 247-255.

Rogers, H. R., Campbell, J. A., Crathorne, B., & Dobbs, A. J. (1989). The occurrence of chlorobenzenes

and permethrins in twelve U.K. sewage sludges. Water Research, 23(7): 913-921.

Sahlström, L (2003) A review of survival of pathogenic bacteria in organic waste used in biogas

plants. Bioresource Technology 87(2):161-166.

Sanchez ME, Estrada IB, Martinez O, Martin-Villacorta J, Aller A, Moran A (2004) Influence of the

application of sewage sludge on the degradation of pesticides in soil. Chemosphere 57: 673-679.

Sanz JL, Rodriguez N, Amils R (1996) The action of antibiotics on the anaerobic digestion process.

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 46: 587-592.

Sarmah AK, Meyer MT, Boxall ABA (2006) A global perspective on the use, sales, exposure

pathways, occurrence, fate and effects of veterinary antibiotics (VAs) in the environment.

Chemosphere 65(5): 725-759.

Sewart, A., Harrad, S. J., McLachlan, M. S., McGrath, S. P., & Jones, K. C. (1995). PCDD/Fs and non-o-

PCBs in digested U.K. sewage sludges. Chemosphere, 30(1): 51-67.

SEPA (1998). Strategic review of organic waste spread on land. Scottish Environment protection

Agency, HMSO.

Scholz W, Lucas M (2003) Techno-economic evaluation of membrane filtration for the recovery and

re-use of tanning chemicals. Water Research 37(8): 1859-1867.

SI (1989/1263) The sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989. Statutory Instrument (SI)

1989/1263, UK.

SI (1991/1618). The Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 (Commencement) Order 1991.

Statutory Instrument (SI) 1991 No.1618. UK.

SI (1991/1624). The Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizures of Vehicles) Regulations

1991. Statutory Instrument (SI) 1991 No.1624. UK.

SI (1991/1914). Notification of New Substances (amendment) Regulations 1991. Statutory

Instrument (SI) 1991 No. 1914. UK.

SI (1994/1056). The Waste Management Licencing Regulations 1994. Statutory Instrument (SI)1994

No. 1056. UK.

SI (2002/1559). The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. Statutory Instrument (SI) 2002

No.1559. England and Wales.

SI (2003/3274). The Environmental Protection (Controls on Dangerous Substances) Regulations.

Statutory Instrument (SI) 2003 No. 3274, UK.

SI (2003/791) The Creosote (Prohibition on Use and Marketing) Regulations 2003. SI 2003 No. 721

UK.


SI (2005/1728) Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related

Provisions)(No.3) Regulations 2005. . Statutory Instrument (SI) 2005/1728, UK.

Sinclair CJ, Boxall ABA (2003) Assessing the ecotoxicity of pesticide transformation products. Environ

Sci Technol. 37:4617– 4625.

Singer H, Muller S, Tixier C & Pillonel L (2002) Triclosan: Occurrence and fate of a widely used biocide

in the aquatic environment: field measurements in wastewater treatment plants, surface waters,

and lake sediments. Environmental Science & Technology 36: 4998-5004.

Slater R, Davies P & Gilbert EJ (2005). The State of Composting in the UK 2003/04. The Composting

Association Wellingborough.

Sleeman, PJ. (1984). Determination of pollutants in effluents (MPC 4332C). Detailed analysis of the

trace element contents of UK sewage sludges. WRc (Water Research) report 280-S. Medmenham,

Marlow, UK.

Smith KP (2002). Effectiveness of Three Best Management Practices for Highway-Runoff Quality

along the Southeast Expressway,Boston, Massachusetts. Report for the US geological Survey.

Smith SR (2000) Are controls on organic contaminants necessary to protect the environment when

sewage sludge is used in agriculture? Prog. In Environ., 2:129-146.

Smith SR, Lang NL, Cheung KHM, Spanoudaki K (2005) Factors controlling pathogen destruction

during anaerobic digestion of biowastes. Waste management 25(4):417-425

Sörme L, Lagerkvist R (2002) Sources of heavy metals in urban wastewater in Stockholm. The Science

of the Total Environment, 298(1-3):131-145.

SORP (2003) Recycling organic materials to land: the facts. Sustainable Organic Resources

Partnership (SORP)- Technical briefing note 1.

Spiehs M and Goyal S (2007) Best management practices for pathogen control in manure

management systems. University of Minnesota.

Squillace PJ, Pankow JF, Korte NE, Zogorski JS (1998) Environmental behaviour and fate of methy

tert-butyl ether (MTBE). US Geological Survey, National Water Quality Assessment Program

(NAWQA). Fact Sheet FS-203-96 (revised 2/98) (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/mtbe/fs20396/).

Stearns DM (2000). Is chromium a trace essential metal? Biofactors, 11 (3): 149–62.

Stevens JL, Jones KC (2003) Quantification of PCDD/F concentrations in animal manure and

comparison of the effects of the application of cattle manure and sewage sludge to agricultural

land on human exposure to PCDD/Fs. Chemosphere 50, 1183-1191.

Stevens, J. L., Northcott, G. L., Stern, G. A., Tomy, G. T., & Jones, K. C. (2003). PAHs, PCBs, PCNs,

Organochlorine Pesticides, Synthetic Musks, and Polychlorinated n-Alkanes in U.K. Sewage

Sludge: Survey Results and Implications. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(3): 462-467.

Stevens, J., Green, N. J. L., & Jones, K. C. (2001). Survey of PCDD/Fs and non-ortho PCBs in UK sewage

sludges. Chemosphere, 44(6): 1455-1462.


Stockholms Läns Landsting (2006) Environmentally classified pharmaceuticals. Stockholm County

Council. Online http://www.sll.se/upload/Milj%C3%B6/A4.1.klassific.pdf

Swedish EPA; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 1997. Compost Quality and Potential for

Use. Swedish EPA., AFR- 154, Stockholm, Sweden.

Tandy S, Williamson JC, Nason MA, Healey JR, Jones DL (2008) Deinking paper fibre application to

agricultural land: soil quality enhancer or copper polluter? Soil Use and Management 24(2): 217-

220.

Tayibi H, Pena C, Lopez FA, Lopez-Delgado A (2007) Management of MSW in Spain and recovery of

packaging steel scrap. Waste Management 27(11):1655-1665.

Telschow, R (1994) Reducing heavy metal content in offset printing inks. Innovative clean

technologies case studies. Second year project report. EPA Cooperative Agreement No. CR-

817670.

Ternes TA, Andersen H, Gilberg D, Bonerz M (2002) Determination of Estrogens in Sludge and

Sediments by Liquid Extraction and GC/MS/MS. Anal Chem 74: 3498-3504.

The Safe Sludge matrix (2001) Guidelines for the application of sewage sludge to agricultural land.

April 2001, 3rd

Edition. Available online at

http://www.assuredproduce.co.uk/_code/common/item.asp?id=4033093

Thompson G, Swain J, Kay M, Forster CF (2001) The treatment of pulp and paper mill effluent: a

review. Bioresource technology 77(3):275-286.

Topp E, Monteiro SC, Beck A, Coelho BB, Boxall ABA, Duenk PW, Kleywegt S, Lapen DR, Payne M,

Sabourin L, Li H, Metcalfe CD (2008) Runoff of pharmaceuticals and personal care products

following application of biosolids to an agricultural field. Sci Total Environ 396: 52-59.

Trépanier, L, Gallichand, J, Caron, J and Thériault, G (1998) Environmental effects of deinking sludge

application on soil and soil water quality. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural

Engineers 41, 1279-1287.

UKCIP (2009) UK Climate Projections09, Department of Environment,Food and Rural Affairs.

UKWIR (1995). Identification of priority organic contaminants in sewage sludge. . London, UKWIR

(UK Water Industry Research).

UNEP (1999) United Nations Environment Programme 1999. Inventory of Information on Chemicals

– Persistent Organic Pollutants, prepared by UNEP Chemicals, November 1999. 148p.

Available online at http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/pdf/invsrce/inventpopscomb.pdf

Verge –Leviel C (2001). Les micropolluants organiques dans les composts d’origine urbaine: e´tude

de leur devenir au cours du compostage et biodisponibilite des resides apres epandage des

composts. Dissertation. Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon, Paris.

Vidal G, Nieto J, Cooman K, Gajardo M, Bornhardt C (2004) Unhairing effluents treated by an

activated sludge system. Journal of Hazardous Materials 112(1-2): 143-149.

Wang MJ, Jones KC (1994). The chlorobenzene content of contemporary U.K. sewage sludges.

Chemosphere, 28(6): 1201-1210.


Wang, M. J., McGrath, S. P., & Jones, K. C. (1995). Chlorobenzenes in field soil with a history of

multiple sewage sludge applications. Environmental Science & Technology, 29(2): 356-362.

Wasteonline (2005) Waste Online: Legislation Affecting Waste. Available online at

http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Legislation.htm

Webber, MD (1996). Compilation, Review and Evaluation of Organic Contaminants in Compost and

Compost Feedstock Materials. Report no. 1996-RRS-2 for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the

Environment. Water Technology International Corporation, Burlington, Ontario, Canada.

Welker, A and Schmitt, TG (1997) A basic investigation of AOX-substances in paper sludges. Water

Research 31, 805-815.

Wetzig R (2008) Removal of ASelected Pharmaceuticals from Sewage Water by Advanced Treatment

Techniques. Freiberg, Institut fur Biowissenschaften.

White WC, Kuehl MH (2002) The role of construction textiles in indoor environmental pollution.

Journal of Industrial Textiles, 32(1):23-43.

WHO (World Health Organization). 1997. The medical impact of the use of antimicrobials in food

animals: report of a WHO meeting, Berlin, Germany, Document No. WHO/EMC/ZOO/97.4.

Wild SR, Jones KC (1992). Organic chemicals entering agricultural soils in sewage sludges: screening

for their potential to transfer to crop plants and livestock. Science of The Total Environment, 119:

85-119.

Wild, S. R., Harrad, S. J., & Jones, K. C. (1993). Chlorophenols in digested U.K. sewage sludges. Water

Research, 27(10): 1527-1534.

Wilson S.C., Burnett, V., Waterhouse, K.S. and Jones, K.C. (1994) Volatile organic compounds in

digested United Kingdom sewage sludges. Environmental Science and Technology 28:259-266.

Wilson, S. C., Alcock, R. E., Sewart, A. P., & Jones, K. C. (1997). Persistence of Organic Contaminants

in Sewage Sludge-Amended Soil: A Field Experiment. Journal of Environmental Quality, 26(6):

1467-1477.

Wit CA de (2002) An overview of brominated flame retardants in the environment. Chemosphere

46(5):583-624.

Witte W 1998. Medical consequences of antibiotic use in agriculture. Science 279:949–1096.

WRAP (2009) Market Survey of the UK organics recycling industry – 2007/08. Final report by Waste

and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), Oxon, UK.

WRAP (2005). Options and Risk Assessment for Treated Wood Waste, The Waste & Resources Action

Programme.

WRAP (2009)Risk assessment of the use of PAS100 green composts in Scottish livestock production',

in press. Waste & Resources Action Programme, Banbury, Oxon.

WRc (1994) Diffuse sources of heavy metals to sewers. Final report to the Department of the

Environment (DoE) 3624. June 1994.


WRc (2009) On the environmental impacts of the activity of spreading waste to land. Final report to

Defra. WRc reference: UC7899.02. WRc, Swindon, UK.

Xia, K., Bhandari, A., Das, K., & Pillar, G. (2005). Occurrence and Fate of Pharmaceuticals and

Personal Care Products (PPCPs) in Biosolids. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34(1): 91-104.

Zmora-Nahum S, Hadar Y, Chen Y (2007) Physico-chemical properties of commercial composts

varying in their source materials and country of origin. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36(6):1263-

1276


APPENDIX A Table A - 1 Prioritisation assessment for veterinary compounds that have the potential to enter the environment (Boxall et al., 2003)

Therapeutic group Chemical group Major usage compounds Potential to enter

the environment Usage class

Hazard to terrestrial

organisms

Antimicrobials

Tetracyclines

Oxytetracycline

Chlortetracycline

Tetracycline

High

High

High

High

Low

Very high

Unknown

Potentiated

sulphonamides

Sulfadiazine

Trimethoprim

Baquiloprim

High

High

Unknown

High

High

Unknown

Unknown

β- Lactams

Amoxicillin

Procaine penicillin

Procaine benzylpenicillin

Clavunalic acid

High

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

High

Unknown

Very high

Unknown

Unknown

Aminoglycosides

Dihydrostreptomycin

Neomycin

Apramycin

Flavomycin

High

High

High

Unknown

High

Unknown

Unknown

Unknownery high

Unknown

Macrolides

Tylosin

Monensin

Salinomycin sodium

Flavophospolipol

High

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

High

Low

Very high

Very high

Unknown

Pleuromutlins Tiamulin Unknown Medium Medium

Lincosamides Lincomycin

Clyndamycin

Unknown

Unknown Medium

Very high

Unknown

Endoparasiticides

Pyrimidines (wormers) Morantel Medium Medium Unknown

Pyrethroids (sheep dips) Cypermethrin

Flumethrin

High

High Medium

Unknown

Unknown


Table A-1 (cont.) Prioritisation assessment for veterinary compounds that have the potential to enter the environment (Boxall et al., 2003)




organisms

Endoparasiticides

Azoles (Wormers)

Triclabendazole

Fenbendazole

Levamisole

Medium

Unknown

Unknown

Medium

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Macrolide

endectins Ivermectin Medium Medium Very high

Endoparasiticides-

coccidiostats

Amprolium

Clopidol

Lasalocid sodium

Maduramicin

Nicarbazin

Robenidine hydrochloride

Medium

Unknown

Unknown

Medium

Unknown

Unknown

High

Very high

Unknown

Unknown

Very high

Unknown

Unknown

Other antibiotics

Cephalexin

Florfenicol

Tilmicosin

Oxolinic acid

Lido/lignocaine hydrochloride

Unknown

High

Unknown

High

Unknown

Medium

Unknown

Very high

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Endoparasiticides Others Nitroxynil Unknown Medium Unknown

Antimicrobials Fluoroquinolones Enrofloxacin

Sarafloxacin

High

High Medium

Unknown

Very high

Enteric preparations

Dinmethicone

Poloxalene

Toltrazuril

Decoquinate

Diclazuril

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Low

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown


Table A-1 (cont.) Prioritisation assessment for veterinary compounds that have the potential to enter the environment (Boxall et al., 2003)




organisms

Ectoparasiticides Phosmet

Piperonyl butoxide

High

Medium Unknown/low Unknown

Amidines (sheep

dip) Amitraz High Unknown Unknown

Delamethrin

Cypromazine

High

High Unknown

High

Unknown

Organophosphate Diazinon High High Very high


APPENDIX B Table A-2 Concentrations reported for organic contaminants in sewage sludge in the UK Compound CAS Sludge Range Mean Median Reference

mg/kg dw μg/kg dw mg/kg dw μg/kg dw mg/kg dw μg/kg dw

Alkyl and aromatic amine

EDTA 150-43-6 NS 2.2-3.8 2.32 1.2 UKWIR, 1995

Carbonyl

Nitroacetic acid 625-75-2 NS 1.4-23 10.1 8.5 UKWIR, 1995

Chlorinated phenols

Chlorophenol 25167-80-0 NS 0.0277-93.3 Wild and Jones, 1992

2,3-dichlorophenol NS 0.0004-0.072 0.024 0.005 UKWIR, 1995

2,4-dichlorophenol 120-83-2 AN 0.160 ± 0.006 Wilson et al., 1997

2,4-dichlorophenol 120-83-2 NS 0.35-2.6 1.36 1.25 UKWIR, 1995

2,4-dichlorophenol 120-83-2 AN 7.2 - 52.6 Wild et al., 1993

2,5-dichlorophenol 583-78-8 AN 0.017± 0.001 Wilson et al., 1997



2,6-dichlorophenol 87-65-0 AN 0 - 0.74 Wild et al., 1993




3,5-dichlorophenol 59-35-5 AN 0.017± 0.001 Wilson et al., 1997


2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol 4901-51-3 AN 0.005 ± 0.0001 Wilson et al., 1997

2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol 4901-51-3 AN 0.01 - 0.73 Wild et al., 1993

2,3,4,5-tetrachlorophenol 4901-51-3 NS 0.002-0.036 0.013 0.009 UKWIR, 1995






2,3,4- trichlorophenol 15950-66-0 AN 0.022 ± 0.0002 Wilson et al., 1997

2,3,4- trichlorophenol 15950-66-0 AN 0 - 0.25 Wild et al., 1993


Table A-2 (cont.) Concentrations reported for organic contaminants in sewage sludge in the UK. Compound CAS Sludge Range Mean Median Reference


Chlorinated phenols (cont.)

2,3,4- trichlorophenol 15950-66-0 NS 0.013 0.013 UKWIR, 1995

2,3,4- trichlorophenol 15950-66-0 NS 0.03 - 1.06 Wild et al., 1993

2,3,6-trichlorophenol 933-75-5 AN 0.015 ± 0.0003 Wilson et al., 1997

2,3,6-trichlorophenol 933-75-5 NS 0.02 - 0.11 Wild et al., 1993

2,3,6-trichlorophenol 933-75-5 NS 0.002-0.005 0.003 0.003 UKWIR, 1995










pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 NS 0.005-0.101 0.043 0.0305 UKWIR, 1995

pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 AN 0.1 - 2.04 Wild et al., 1993

Chlorobenzenes

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 NS 35100-192000 108875 101050 UKWIR, 1995

1,2-dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 NS nd-0.126 0.0174 0.0066 Wang et al., 1995

1,2-dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 NS 71.3-4110 877 237.5 UKWIR, 1995

1,2-dichlorobenzene 95-50-1 NS 1.5-13.6 7.5 8.5 UKWIR, 1995

1,3-dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NS 13-467 110 47.2 UKWIR, 1995

1,3-dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NS 0.6-40.2 5.3 2 UKWIR, 1995

1,3-dichlorobenzene 541-73-1 NS nd-0.101 0.0107 0.00296 Wang et al., 1995

1,4-dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 NS 0.00776-

0.00718 0.0298 0.0255 Wang et al., 1995

1,4-dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 NS 561-2320 1310 1250 UKWIR, 1995

1,4-dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 NS 1.6-33.9 14.3 12.65 UKWIR, 1995



mg/kg dw μg/kg dw mg/kg dw μg/kg dw mg/kg dw

Chlorobenzenes (cont.)

1,3,5-trichlorobenzene 108-70-3 NS nd-0.00391 0.00122 0.00081 Wang et al., 1995

1,3,5-trichlorobenzene 108-70-3 NS 0.005-39.7 0.06 UKWIR, 1995

1,3,5-trichlorobenzene 108-70-3 NS 0.11-0.65 0.34 0.27 UKWIR, 1995

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 NS nd-0.0144 0.00263 0.00194 Wang et al., 1995

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 120-82-1 NS 14.7-1070 264 51.1 UKWIR, 1995


1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 NS nd-0.00129 0.00021 nd Wang et al., 1995

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 87-61-6 NS 2.35-484 107 9.11 UKWIR, 1995


1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 NS nd-0.00097 0.00033 0.00025 Wang et al., 1995

1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 95-94-3 NS 2.19-38.2 11.4 5.76 UKWIR, 1995

1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 12408-10-5 NS nd-0.00728 0.00189 0.00026 Wang et al., 1995

1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 12408-10-5 NS 0.22-45.4 11 4.41 UKWIR, 1995

1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 12408-10-5 NS 0.01-0.22 0.13 0.13 UKWIR, 1995

1,2,3,5-tetrachlorobenzene 634-90-2 NS 0.43-101 13 2.48 UKWIR, 1995

(1,2,3,5 + 1,2,4,5)-

tetrachlorobenzene NS 0.01-0.21 0.11 0.1 UKWIR, 1995

pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 NS 0.00010-

0.00283 0.00069 0.00039 Wang et al., 1995

pentachlorobenzene 608-93-5 NS 2.16-37.36 9.8 4.85 UKWIR, 1995

hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 NS 0.00074-

0.00550 0.00251 0.00253 Wang et al., 1995

hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 NS 8.03-90.1 26.1 17.2 UKWIR, 1995

hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 NS 0.017 UKWIR, 1995

hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 NS 0.0001-

0.055 0.013 0.002 UKWIR, 1995



sum of chlorobenzenes

(10 compounds) NS

0.0109-

0.327 0.0674 0.0389 Wang et al., 1995

Sum of chlorobenzenes

(11 compounds) NS <0.01-40.2 Rogers et al., 1989


Table A-2 (cont.) Concentrations reported for organic contaminants in sewage sludge in the UK.

Compound CAS Sludge Range Mean Median Reference


Halogenated aliphatics (short chain)

Chloroform 67-66-3 NS <0.1-2.2 Wild and Jones, 1992

1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3 NS 1.92-16.6 7.97 7.11 UKWIR, 1995

Methylchloride 74-87-3 NS 0.06-30 Wild and Jones, 1992

Trichloroethane 71-55-6 NS 0.011-0.119 0.038 0.029 UKWIR, 1995

Trichloroethane 71-55-6 NS 2.00E-05-8.00E-

04 4.00E-04 0.7 UKWIR, 1995

Trichloroethane 71-55-6 NS 1.00E-04-0.028 0.007 0.006 UKWIR, 1995

Trichloroethane 71-55-6 NS 0.003 UKWIR, 1995

Tetrachloroethane 25322-20-7 NS <0.1-5.0 Wild and Jones, 1992

Tetrachloroethane 25322-20-7 NS 0.027-0.084 0.012 0.032 UKWIR, 1995

Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 NS 0.004-0.515 0.093 0.047 UKWIR, 1995

Tetrachloromethane 56-23-5 NS <0.1-0.2 Wild and Jones, 1992

Tetrachloromethane 56-23-5 NS 0.003-0.1 0.019 0.007 UKWIR, 1995

Halogenated aliphatics (short

and medium chain) DS 1.8-93.1 Nicholls et al., 2000

Monocyclic hydrocarbons and heterocycles

Benzene 71-43-2 NS 0.084-0.317 Bowen et al., 2003

Benzene 71-43-2 NS 0.0046-0.483 Bowen et al., 2003

Benzene 71-43-2 NS 0.11-0.317 0.084 0.211 UKWIR, 1995

m, p- Xylene 1330-20-7 AN 6.300 ± 0.910 Wilson et al., 1997

m, p- Xylene 1330-20-7 NS 0.276-22.1 5.05 3.79 UKWIR, 1995

o-Xylene 95-47-6 NS 0.22-7.18 1.73 1.46 UKWIR, 1995

Toluene 108-88-3 NS nd-0.137 Wild and Jones, 1992

Non-halogenated aliphatics

n-alkanes (C17-C32) NS 265 UKWIR, 1995

n-alkanes (C12-C25), pristine

and phytane NS 540 UKWIR, 1995

Organotins

Sum of organotins NS 0.01-1.3 0.36 0.2 UKWIR, 1995

Pesticides

Aldrin 309-00-2 AS 0.01 - 0.04 McIntyre and Lester, 1984

Aldrin 309-00-2 PT 0.01 - 0.02 McIntyre and Lester, 1984


Table A-2 (cont.) Concentrations reported for organic contaminants in sewage sludge in the UK.

Compound CAS Sludge Range Mean Median Reference


Pesticides (cont.)

Chlordane 57-74-9 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

DDT 50-29-3 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

dieldrin 60-57-1 NS 0.01-53 Wild and Jones, 1992

dieldrin 60-57-1 NS ND - 1.26 McIntyre and Lester, 1982

endosulfan 115-29-7 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

endrin 72-20-8 AS ND - 0.02 McIntyre and Lester, 1984

endrin 72-20-8 PT 0.01 - 0.19 McIntyre and Lester, 1984

endrin 72-20-8 AS 0.01 - 1.17 McIntyre and Lester, 1984

Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 DS 0.0064-0.260 0.042 0.022 Stevens et al., 2003

o,p-DDD 53-19-0 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

o,p-DDE 3424-82-6 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

p,p'-DDD 72-54-8 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

p,p'-DDE 72-55-9 DS 0.006-0.028 0.013 0.013 Stevens et al., 2003

p,p'-DDE 72-55-9 NS 0.01 - 0.49 McIntyre and Lester, 1982

Permethrin 52645-53-1 NS <0.01-40.8 Rogers et al., 1989

α-hexachlorocyclohexane 319-84-6 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

β-hexachlorocyclohexane 319-85-7 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

γ -hexachlorocyclohexane 58-89-9 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

γ -hexachlorocyclohexane 58-89-9 NS <0.01-70 Wild and Jones, 1992

γ -hexachlorocyclohexane 58-89-9 NS ND - 0.93 McIntyre and Lester, 1982

γ -hexachlorocyclohexane 58-89-9 AS 0.01 - 0.21 McIntyre and Lester, 1984

γ -hexachlorocyclohexane 58-89-9 PT 0.02 - 0.61 McIntyre and Lester, 1984

γ -hexachlorocyclohexane 58-89-9 AS 0.01 - 0.23 McIntyre and Lester, 1984

Phthalate acid esters/Plasticizers

Di-n-butylphthalate 84-74-2 0.2-430 Wild and Jones, 1992

Di-n-octylphthalate 117-84-0 trace-115 Wild and Jones, 1992

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

1-Methylnaphthalene 90-12-0 DS 2.4-39 9.9 5 Stevens et al., 2003

1-Methylphenanthrene 832-69-9 DS 0.46-8.1 3.9 3.5 Stevens et al., 2003

2,3,6-trimethylnaphthalene 829-26-5 DS 0.96-15 6.9 5.7 Stevens et al., 2003

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 581-42-0 DS 5.0-110 30 18 Stevens et al., 2003

2-methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 DS 5.9-93 24 13 Stevens et al., 2003




Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)(cont.)

acenaphthene 83-32-9 DS 1.7-6.6 4 3.9 Stevens et al., 2003

acenaphthene 83-32-9 D 0.9-2.1 1.45 1.46 UKWIR, 1995

acenaphthene 83-32-9 IMAN <0.3-6.3 2.2 1.3 UKWIR, 1995

acenaphthylene 208-96-8 DS 0.030-0.10 0.060 0.050 Stevens et al., 2003

acenaphthylene 208-96-8 D <0.38-1 0.450 0.300 UKWIR, 1995

acenaphthylene 208-96-8 I <0.38-7.83 8.900 7.800 UKWIR, 1995

anthracene 120-12-7 DS 0.38-1.8 0.72 0.65 Stevens et al., 2003

anthracene 120-12-7 NS 0.003-1.71 0.23 Bowen et al., 2003

anthracene 120-12-7 D <0.3-1.25 0.8 0.8 UKWIR, 1995

anthracene 120-12-7 I <0.3-10.6 3.7 3.02 UKWIR, 1995

benzo[a]anthracene 56-55-3 DS 0.6-2.8 1.8 1.8 Stevens et al., 2003

benzo[a]pyrene 50-32-8 DS 0.69-4.0 2.1 2.1 Stevens et al., 2003

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 205-99-2 NS 2.1-14.8 Wild and Jones, 1992

benzo[b]fluoranthene 205-99-2 DS 1.1-7.2 3 2.9 Stevens et al., 2003

benzo[e]pyrene 192-97-2 DS 0.82-4.4 2.2 2 Stevens et al., 2003

benzo[ghi]perylene 191-24-2 DS 0.47-2.3 1.3 1.1 Stevens et al., 2003

Benzo[ghi]perylene 191-24-2 NS nd-0.3 Wild and Jones, 1992

benzo[j+k]fluoranthene DS 0.7-4.5 2.2 1.9 Stevens et al., 2003

biphenyl 92-52-4 DS 1.7-28 6.3 4 Stevens et al., 2003

chrysene 218-01-9 DS 1.0-6.0 2.6 2.3 Stevens et al., 2003

chrysene 218-01-9 D <0.3-1.5 0.34 <0.3 UKWIR, 1995

chrysene 218-01-9 IMAN <0.3-1.18 0.6 0.79 UKWIR, 1995

dibenz[ah]anthracene 53-70-3 DS 0.060-0.38 0.19 0.19 Stevens et al., 2003

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 NS 2.2-28.5 Wild and Jones, 1992

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 NS 1.1-4 2.3 Bowen et al., 2003

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 NS 1.04 Bowen et al., 2003

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 D 1.1-4 2.3 2.5 UKWIR, 1995

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 I 0.3-7.2 4.5 5.6 UKWIR, 1995

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 NS 0.34-11.4 2.06 UKWIR, 1995

fluoranthene 206-44-0 DS 1.4-7.4 4.9 5.4 Stevens et al., 2003

fluorene 86-73-7 DS 3.6-8.1 5.7 5.7 Stevens et al., 2003

fluorene 86-73-7 D 1.26-2.54 1.95 1.81 UKWIR, 1995

fluorene 86-73-7 I 3.4-15.8 6.1 5.85 UKWIR, 1995




Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (cont.)

indeno[1,2,3-

cd]pyrene 193-39-5 DS 0.39-2.7 1.1 1.1 Stevens et al., 2003

Naphthalene 91-20-3 DS 0.15-19 3.7 1.4 Stevens et al., 2003

Naphthalene 91-20-3 NS 0.8-3 1.8 1.9 UKWIR, 1995

Naphthalene 91-20-3 IMAN 0.5-14.9 7.4 5.9 UKWIR, 1995

Naphthalene 91-20-3 NS nd-5.8 Wild and Jones, 1992

Perylene 198-55-0 DS 0.12-0.61 0.36 0.35 Stevens et al., 2003

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 NS 2.1-8.3 Wild and Jones, 1992

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 D 2.4-6.1 3.9 3.3 UKWIR, 1995

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 I <0.3-32.4 10.6 6.47 UKWIR, 1995

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 DS 3.2-16 7 6.4 Stevens et al., 2003

Pyrene 129-00-0 NS 1.2-36.8 Wild and Jones, 1992

Pyrene 129-00-0 DS 2.1-5.6 4.2 4.5 Stevens et al., 2003

Pyrene 129-00-0 D 0.8-2.15 1.5 1.66 UKWIR, 1995

Pyrene 129-00-0 I <0.3-7.1 3.4 3.5 UKWIR, 1995

PAHs NS 1 to 10 Wild et al., 1992

PAHs NS 67-246 Leschber, 2006

PAHs NS 18-46 34 Leschber, 2006

PAH (sum of 16

compounds) DS 18-50 36 34 Stevens et al., 2003

Polychlorinated byphenils (PCBs)

arochlor 1016 12674-11-2 NS 0.20-75 Wild and Jones, 1992

arochlor 1248 12672-29-6 NS nd Wild and Jones, 1992

arochlor 1260 11096-82-5 NS 0.02-0.46 Wild and Jones, 1992

6 25569-80-6 NS 0.008-0.7 0.019 UKWIR, 1995

8 34883-43-7 NS 0.002-0.021 0.009 UKWIR, 1995

18 37680-65-2 DS 1.5-1.4 5.7 5 Stevens et al., 2003

18 37680-65-2 NS 0.001-0.018 0.009 UKWIR, 1995

22 38444-85-8 DS 1.7-43 9.3 6 Stevens et al., 2003

28 7012-37-5 DS 5.1-26 12 11 Stevens et al., 2003

28 7012-37-5 NS 0.001-0.021 0.01 UKWIR, 1995

28 7012-37-5 NS 0.0005-1.626 0.142 0.007 UKWIR, 1995

31 16606-02-3 DS 3.5-56 13 8.1 Stevens et al., 2003

44 41464-39-5 DS 1.0-6.5 3.1 2.8 Stevens et al., 2003




Polychlorinated byphenils (PCBs) (cont.)

41/64 DS 1.3-7.3 3.4 3.1 Stevens et al., 2003

49 41464-40-8 DS 1.7-13 4.6 3.8 Stevens et al., 2003

52 35693-99-3 DS 3.1-28 12 8.7 Stevens et al., 2003

52 35693-99-3 NS 0.003-0.041 0.011 UKWIR, 1995

54 15968-05-5 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

61 33284-53-6 NS 0.001-0.032 0.002 UKWIR, 1995

60/56 DS 0.4-4.8 1.8 1.9 Stevens et al., 2003

61/74 NS 0.0004-0.456 0.042 0.005 UKWIR, 1995

66 32598-10-0 NS 0.001-0.009 0.007 UKWIR, 1995

70 32598-11-1 DS 2.7-33 8.3 6.1 Stevens et al., 2003

74 32690-93-0 DS 1.7-8.7 3.5 3 Stevens et al., 2003

77 32598-13-3 DS 0.540-4.270 Sewart et al., 1995

77 32598-13-3 DS 0.238-54.500 Stevens et al., 2001

87 38380-02-8 DS 0.9-5.3 2.6 2.1 Stevens et al., 2003

82/151 NS 0.001-0.028 0.012 UKWIR, 1995

90/101 DS 3.8-74 13 8.2 Stevens et al., 2003

95 38380-02-8 DS 2.3-22 6.4 4.4 Stevens et al., 2003

99 38380-01-7 DS 1.1-4.9 2.6 2.1 Stevens et al., 2003

99 38380-01-7 NS 0.001-0.02 0.006 UKWIR, 1995

101 37680-73-2 NS 0.001-0.047 0.016 UKWIR, 1995


104 56558-16-8 NS 0.001-0.02 0.011 UKWIR, 1995


105 32598-14-4 NS 0.002-0.026 0.012 UKWIR, 1995

110 38380-03-9 DS 1.5-10 4.6 4 Stevens et al., 2003

110 38380-03-9 MAN 0.001-0.043 0.014 UKWIR, 1995


118 31508-00-6 DS 1.6-20 6.1 5.2 Stevens et al., 2003

118 31508-00-6 NS 0.0007-0.091 0.017 0.002 UKWIR, 1995

126 54765-28-8 DS nd-0.280 Sewart et al., 1995





126 54765-28-8 DS 0.0199-6.520 Stevens et al., 2001

123 65510-44-3 DS 0.3-8.4 4 3.4 Stevens et al., 2003

132 38380-05-1 DS 10 to 39 20 19 Stevens et al., 2003

138 35065-28-2 DS 6.9-23 13 12 Stevens et al., 2003

138 35065-28-2 NS 0.002-0.047 UKWIR, 1995

141 52712-04-6 DS 1.3-5.7 2.8 2.3 Stevens et al., 2003

149 38380-04-0 DS 5.7-20 11 8.9 Stevens et al., 2003

149 38380-04-0 NS 0.002-0.065 0.019 UKWIR, 1995

151 52663-63-5 DS 2.1-7.6 3.8 2.9 Stevens et al., 2003

153 35065-27-1 DS 7.3-27 14 13 Stevens et al., 2003

153 35065-27-1 NS 0.001-0.049 0.012 UKWIR, 1995


156 38380-08-4 DS 0.5-2.1 1.1 0.97 Stevens et al., 2003

157 69782-90-7 DS 0.1-0.49 0.31 0.29 Stevens et al., 2003

158 74472-42-7 DS 0.2-2.3 1.2 1 Stevens et al., 2003

167 52663-72-6 DS 0.2-1.1 0.49 0.4 Stevens et al., 2003

169 32774-16-6 DS nd-0.055 Sewart et al., 1995

169 32774-16-6 DS 0.0045-2.010 Stevens et al., 2001

170 32774-16-6 DS 1.3-8.6 3.3 2.3 Stevens et al., 2003

170 32774-16-6 NS 0.001-0.061 0.021 UKWIR, 1995

174 35065-30-6 DS 1.6-9.7 3.9 2.9 Stevens et al., 2003

180 38411-25-5 DS 4.7-23 10 8.5 Stevens et al., 2003

180 38411-25-5 NS 0.002-0.043 0.013 UKWIR, 1995

183 35065-29-3 DS 1.2-5.7 2.6 2.1 Stevens et al., 2003

187 52663-76-0 DS 2.6-12 5.8 4.8 Stevens et al., 2003

187 52663-76-0 NS 0.001-0.018 0.005 UKWIR, 1995

187 52663-76-0 NS 0.001-0.018 0.005 UKWIR, 1995


189 52663-76-0 DS 0.010-0.35 0.17 0.17 Stevens et al., 2003

194 35694-8-7 DS 0.1-7.5 2.6 2 Stevens et al., 2003

199 52663-73-7 DS 0.090-1.3 0.35 0.26 Stevens et al., 2003





194/205 NS 0.002-0.035 0.01 UKWIR, 1995

201 40186-71-8 NS 0.001-0.013 0.006 UKWIR, 1995

203 52663-76-0 DS 1.4-11 3.1 2.5 Stevens et al., 2003

206 40186-72-9 NS 0.001-0.02 0.008 UKWIR, 1995

208 52663-77-1 NS 0.001-0.021 0.006 UKWIR, 1995

PCB (sum) NS 0.05-0.5 Bowen et al., 2003

PCB (sum of 7 compounds) DS 44-180 81 71 Stevens et al., 2003

three PCBs (non-ortho-

substituted) DS 0.272-63 0.695 Stevens et al., 2001

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans(PCDD/Fs)

Monochlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.00204-

0.0548 Stevens et al., 2001

Monochlorodibenzofurans DS 0.00797-1.410 Sewart et al., 1995

Dichlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.793-5.250 Stevens et al., 2001

Dichlorodibenzofurans DS 3.250-414.00 Sewart et al., 1995

Trichlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.0114-1.470 Stevens et al., 2001

Trichlorodibenzofurans DS 0.0262-1.020 Stevens et al., 2001

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins DS nd-0.190 Stevens et al., 2001

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.00335-

0.0768 Sewart et al., 1995

Tetrachlorodibenzofurans DS nd-0.430 Stevens et al., 2001

Tetrachlorodibenzofurans DS 0.0451-0.180 Stevens et al., 2001

Pentachlorodibenzodioxins DS nd-0.480 Stevens et al., 2001

Pentachlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.0362-0.308 Sewart et al., 1995

Pentachlorodibenzofurans DS nd-0.500 Stevens et al., 2001

Pentachlorodibenzofurans DS 0.0551-0.396 Sewart et al., 1995

Hexachlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.040-1.660 Stevens et al., 2001

Hexachlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.0890-274.0 Sewart et al., 1995

Hexachlorodibenzofurans DS nd-0.800 Stevens et al., 2001

Hexachlorodibenzofurans DS 0.0876-1.120 Stevens et al., 2001


Table A-2 (cont.). Concentrations reported for organic contaminants in sewage sludge in the UK. Compound CAS Sludge Range Mean Median Reference


Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans(PCDD/Fs) (cont.)

Heptachlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.380-150.00 Stevens et al., 2001

Heptachlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.423-22.50 Sewart et al., 1995

Heptachlorodibenzofurans DS 0.155-3.090 Stevens et al., 2001

Heptachlorodibenzofurans DS 0.167-4.150 Sewart et al., 1995

Octachlorodibenzodioxins DS 0.460-59.00 Stevens et al., 2001

Octachlorodibenzodioxins DS 2.320-51.50 Sewart et al., 1995

Octachlorodibenzofuran DS 0.020-1.980 Stevens et al., 2001

Octachlorodibenzofuran DS 0.192-2.591 Sewart et al., 1995

Total C14-C18 DD/Fs DS 4.030-85.30 15.2 6.53 Stevens et al., 2001

Total C11-C18 DD/Fs DS 8.880-428.00 75.3 23.3 Stevens et al., 2001

Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs)

19 DS nd-1.8 0.5 0.2 Stevens et al., 2003

23 DS nd-20 10 9.7 Stevens et al., 2003

15 DS 12 to 78 27 23 Stevens et al., 2003

16 DS 13-97 31 26 Stevens et al., 2003

42 DS 0.3-0.8 0.5 0.5 Stevens et al., 2003

PCN 4-11* DS nd-0.4 0.2 0.2 Stevens et al., 2003

38(40) DS 1.5-3.9 2.4 2.2 Stevens et al., 2003


33/34/37 DS 1.9-4.4 3 2.9 Stevens et al., 2003

47 DS 0.6-3.2 1.1 0.9 Stevens et al., 2003

36/35 DS 0.2-1.1 0.6 0.6 Stevens et al., 2003

52/60 DS nd-0.9 0.3 0.3 Stevens et al., 2003

59 DS nd-1.9 0.4 nd Stevens et al., 2003


23 DS nd-20 10 9.7 Stevens et al., 2003

15 DS 12 to 78 27 23 Stevens et al., 2003

16 DS 13-97 31 26 Stevens et al., 2003

42 DS 0.3-0.8 0.5 0.5 Stevens et al., 2003

PCN 4-11* DS nd-0.4 0.2 0.2 Stevens et al., 2003

38(40) DS 1.5-3.9 2.4 2.2 Stevens et al., 2003





Polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) (cont.)

33/34/37 DS 1.9-4.4 3 2.9 Stevens et al., 2003

47 DS 0.6-3.2 1.1 0.9 Stevens et al., 2003

36/35 DS 0.2-1.1 0.6 0.6 Stevens et al., 2003

52/60 DS nd-0.9 0.3 0.3 Stevens et al., 2003

59 DS nd-1.9 0.4 nd Stevens et al., 2003

Surfactants

LAS AN 9300-18800 Jones and Northcott, 2000

LAS NS 800-14300 Wild and Jones, 1992

Nonylphenol NS 450-25300 Wild and Jones, 1992

Synthetic musks

Amberette 83-66-9 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

Cashmeran 33704-61-9 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

Celestolide (ADBI) 13171-00-1 DS 0.010-0.26 0.071 0.035 Stevens et al., 2003

Galaxolide (HHCB) 1222-05-5 DS 1.9-81 27 26 Stevens et al., 2003

Musk moskene 116-66-5 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

Musk ketone 81-14-1 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

Musk xylene 81-15-2 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

Phantolide (AHMI) 15323-35-0 DS 0.032-1.1 0.41 0.39 Stevens et al., 2003

Musk tibetene 145-39-1 DS nd Stevens et al., 2003

Tonalide (AHTN) 1506-02-1 DS 0.12-16 4.7 4 Stevens et al., 2003

Traseolide (ATII) 68140-48-7 DS 0.044-1.1 0.45 0.45 Stevens et al., 2003

EDTA- ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; NS- not specified; DS-digested sludge; AN- anaerobically digested; I- industrial; D- domestic; IMAN- industrial mesophilic anaerobically digested; MAN-

mesophilic anaerobically digested.


APPENDIX C

ANNEX I

CATEGORIES OF WASTE

Q1 Production or consumption residues not otherwise specified below

Q2 Off-specification products

Q3 Products whose date for appropriate use has expired

Q4 Materials spilled, lost or having undergone other mishap, including any materials,

equipment, etc., contaminated as a result of the mishap

Q5 Materials contaminated or soiled as a result of planned actions (e.g. residues from

cleaning operations, packing materials, containers, etc.)

Q6 Unusable parts (e.g. reject batteries, exhausted catalysts, etc.)

Q7 Substances which no longer perform satisfactorily (e.g. contaminated acids,

contaminated solvents, exhausted tempering salts, etc.)

Q8 Residues of industrial processes (e.g. slags, still bottoms, etc.)

Q9 Residues from pollution abatement processes (e.g. scrubber sludges, baghouse dusts,

spent filters, etc.)

Q10 Machining/finishing residues (e.g. lathe turnings, mill scales, etc.)

Q11 Residues from raw materials extraction and processing (e.g. mining residues, oil field

slops, etc.)

Q12 Adulterated materials (e.g. oils contaminated with PCBs, etc.)

Q13 Any materials, substances or products the use of which has been banned by law

Q14 Products for which the holder has no further use (e.g. agricultural, household, office,

commercial and shop discards, etc.)

Q15 Contaminated materials, substances or products resulting from remedial action with

respect to land

Q16 Any materials, substances or products which are not contained in the abovementioned

categories.


APPENDIX D

Table A - 3 Plant toxins that may occur in green compost

Potentially hazardous agents – Plant Toxins

Volatile oils: (mustard oil, horseradish, wild radish)

1. n-propyl disulphate (Wild Garlic, Allium ursinum, & other onions)

2. Mercurialine (Dog’s Mercury, Mercurialis perennis; Annual Mercury, Mercurialis annua)

3. Tetrahydrocannabinols (Cannabis, Cannabis sativa)

4. Protoanemonin (Wood Anemone, Anemone nemerosa; Buttercup, Ranunculus spp.)

Tannins:

Tannic acid (Oak, Quercus spp.; Bracken, Pteridium aquilinum; broomrape)

Alkaloids:

1. Aconitine (Monkshood/Wolf’s-bane, Aconitum napellus)

2. Ajacine/Ajaconiine (all delphiniums)

3. Aquaticine (Senecio aquaticus)

4. Atropine, hyoscyamine, hyoscine (Deadly Nightshade, Atropa belladonna; Henbane, Hyoscyamus

niger; Thorn-apple, Datura stramonium)

5. Berberine (Barberry, Berberis spp.)

6. Bryonicine (White Bryony, Bryonia dioica)

7. Buxine (Box, Buxus sempervirens)

8. Chelidonine/homochelidonine/chelerythrine/sanguinarine (Celandines, Chelidonium majus;

horned or sea poppy)

9. Colchicine, colchiceine (Meadow Saffron, Colchicum autumnale)

10. Coniine, methylconiine, coniceine, conhydrine (Hemlock, Conium maculatum; fool’s parsley)

11. Cynapine (Fool’s parsley)

12. Cytisine (Laburnum, Laburnum anagyroides; broom)

13. Ephedrine (Monkswood, Aconitum napellus; Yew, Taxus baccata)

14. Imperialine (fritillary)

15. Isatadine (Senecio isatadeus)

16. Jacobine, jacodine, jaconiine (all Ragwort, Senecio spp.)

17. Lobeline (lobelias)

18. Lupinine, lupinidine, l-lupanine, dl-lupanine, hydroxylupanine (Lupins, Lupinus spp.)

19. Lycorine, galanthamine (Daffodil, Narcissus spp.)

20. d-lysergic acid amide or ergine (Morning Glory, Ipomoea spp.)

21. Morphine (Opium Poppy, Papaver somniferum)

22. Nicotine (tobacco inc. ornamental varieties)

23. Palustrine (Horsetails, Equisetum spp.)

24. Rhoeadine (Field Poppy, Papaver rhoeas)

25. Solanine, solanein, solanidine (Woody Nightshade, Solanum dulcamara; Black/Garden Nightshade,

Solanum nigrum; Potato foliage & green potato, Solanum tuberosum; tomato foliage)

26. Solanocapsine (Christmas Cherry, Solanum capsicastrum and Solanum pseudocapsicum)

27. Sparteine (broom)

28. Taxine (Yew, Taxus baccata)

29.Temuline (darnel)


Table A - 3 (cont.) Plant toxins that may occur in green compost Glycosides:

1. Aesculin (Horse Chestnut, Aesculus hippocastanum; Ash, Fraxinus excelsior)

2. Amygdalin, glycoside + emulsion, enzyme = hydrocyanic acid (kernals of apple, pear, plum, cherry,

peach, apricot, almond & leaves of Cherry Laurel, Prunus laurocerasus)

3. Bryonin (White Bryony, Bryonia dioica)

4. Convallotoxin, Convallamarin, convallarin convalloside (Lilly of the valley, Convallaria majalis)

5. Cyanogenetic glycosides (Marsh & Sea arrow grass)

6. Cyclamin (Cyclamins)

7. Digitoxin, digitalin (Foxglove, Digitalis purpurea; water figwort)

8. Emodin (Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica; Alder)

9. Euonymine (Spindle Tree, Euonymus europaeus)

10. Helleborein/Helleborin (Hellebores, Veratrum spp.)

11. Ilicin (Holly, Ilex aquifolium)

12. Iridin/Irisin (Irises, Iris spp.)

13. Linamarin (glycoside and goitrogen)

14. Ligustrin (Privet, Ligustrum spp.)

15. Lotaustralin (white clover)

16. Narthecin (Bog Asphodel, Narthecium ossifragum)

17. Paridin (herb paris)

18. Phytolaccin, phytolaccatoxin (Pokeweed, Phytolacca Americana)

19. Prunasin (Bracken, Pteridium aquilinum; Cherry Laurel, Prunus laurocerasus)

20. Ranunculin (Wood Anemone, Anemone nemorosa; Traveller’s Joy, Clematis vitalba; Buttercup,

Ranunculus spp.)

21. Saponin(s) (chickweed; corn cockle; pinks & carnations; fat hen, Chenopodium album; nightshade;

herb paris; Ivy, Hedera helix; Dog’s Mercury, Mercurialis perennis; Annual Mercury, Mercurialis

annua; Lily of the Valley, Convallaria majalis; Bog Asphodel, Narthecium ossifragum; Solomon’s

Seal, Polygonatum multiflorum)

22. Scillarens (Bluebell, Hyacinthoides non-scripta)

23. Scoparin (broom)

24. Scillaine (Daffodil, Narcissus spp.)

25. Similacin (Scarlet pimpernel)

26. Sinigrin (Horse Radish, Armoracia rusticana)

Phyto-dynamic substances: (buckwheat; St. John’s wort; Bog Asphodel, Narthecium ossifragum;

yellow trefoils)

1. Furocoumarins (Giant Hogweed, Haracleum mantegazzianum)

2. Hypericin (St. John’s Wort, Hypericum perforatum)

Proteins, peptides & amino acids

1. Ricin (Caster Oil Plant, Ricinus communis)

2. Viscotoxin A & B (Mistletoe, Viscum album)

Enzymes:

1. linamarase (Flax)

2. Thiaminase (destroys vit B1; Horsetails, Equisetum spp.; Bracken, Pteridium aquilinum)

Carcinogens:

1. Ptaquiloside (Bracken, Pteridium aquilinum)


Table A - 3 (cont.) Plant toxins that may occur in green compost Oxalic acid and soluble oxalates: (fodder beets & mangles; wood sorrels; Docks & sorrels; rhubarb;

water pepper; knotweed; peachwort)

1. Ca Oxylate crystals (Cuckoo Pint, Arum maculatum; Black Bryony, Tamus communis)

2. Ca Oxylate sap (Dumb Cane, Dieffenbachia spp.; Cheese Plant, Monstera deliciosa; Elephant’s Ear,

Philodendron spp.; Arum Lily, Zantedeschia spp.)

3. Oxalates (Fat Hen, Chenopodium album; Rhubarb, Rheum rhaponticum)

Others/not able to group:

1. Hydrocyanic acid (apricot, cherry, peach & plum kernels; apple & pear pips; cherry laurel; linseed;

millet; sorghums; wild white clover; juncus; yew)

2. Thiouracil, and other goitrogens (cabbages, esp. kale)

3. Aflatoxin

4. Molybdenum, ‘teart pastures’

5. Potassium nitrate/nitrites (taken up by fodder crops inc. oats, beet, turnips, kale, rape)

6. Dicoumarol (from breakdown of coumarin in damaged clover)

7. Mezerein, daphnetoxin (Mezereon, Daphne mezereum; Spurge Laurel, Daphne laureola)

8. Cicutoxin (Cowbane, Cicuta virosa)

9. Oenathotoxin (Hemlock Water Dropwort, Oenanthe crocata)

10. Euphorbiosteroid (Spurges inc. dog’s mercury & annual mercury)

11. Diterpene esters (Sun and Petty Spurge, Euphorbia helioscopia and Euphorbia peplus; Poinsettia,

Euphorbia pulcherrima)

12. Lantadene A (Lantana, Lantana spp.)

13. Andromedotoxin or acetylandromedol (Rhododendrons, azaleas & kalmias; Pieris, Pieris spp.)

14. Fagin, Beech, Fagus sylvatica

Limited info:

1. Glycoside, Oleander, Nerium oleander

2. Alkaloids, Comfrey, Symphytum officinale

3. Cyanide-producing glycoside, Elder, Sambucus spp.

4. Snowberry, Symphoricarpos rivularis

5. Cypress, Cupressus spp.


APPENDIX E Table A-4 Concentration ranges of compounds detected in bed sediments

Compound Mean (min; max)

μg/kg DW

Country Reference

Brominated flame retardants

2,2’,4,4’-TeBDE 45.06 (<0.3; 368) UK Allchin et al., 1999

2,2’,4,4’,5-PeBDE 86.39 (<0.6; 898) UK Allchin et al., 1999

2,2’,3,4,4’-PeBDE 9.36 (<0.4; 72) UK Allchin et al., 1999

Tetra+Penta-BDEs 40 (21; 59) Japan Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2003

BDE-47 Maximum - 490 Sweden Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2003

BDE-47 3.2 (<0.17; 6.2) Europe Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2003


BDE-99 3.6 (<0.19; 7) Europe Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2003


BDE-47+99+100 Maximum – 9.6 Sweden Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2003


Pesticides

Sum of DDT Median – 17 USA (all lakes) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Sum of DDT Median- 29 USA (dense urban lake) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Sum of DDT Median- 9 USA (light urban lake) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Sum of DDT Median- 4 USA (reference lake) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Atrazine 30 (1; 166) England Long et al., 1998

Carbaryl 119 (21; 333) England Long et al., 1998

Carbaryl 0.5 (<0.5; 15) England (urban) Daniels et al., 2000

Carbaryl 0.6 (<0.5; 10) England (rural) Daniels et al., 2000

Cis-Permethrin 1392 (3; 5 451) England Long et al., 1998

Cyanazine 53 (1; 146) England Long et al., 1998

Cypermethrin 743(4; 1 140) England Long et al., 1998


Table A-4 (cont.) Concentration ranges of compounds detected in bed sediments


μg/kg DW

Country Reference

Pesticides (cont.)

Deltamethrin nd England Long et al., 1998

Desmetryn 56 (2; 311) England Long et al., 1998

Diazinon 1936 (30; 11 658) England Long et al., 1998

Dimethoate 67 (5; 310) England Long et al., 1998

Fenitrothion 17 (1; 114) England Long et al., 1998

Fenpropimorph 5 (<0.5; 197) England (urban) Daniels et al., 2000

Fenpropimorph 3 (<0.5; 92) England (rural) Daniels et al., 2000

Fenvalerate 332 (11; 336) England Long et al., 1998

Flutriafol 4 England Long et al., 1998

Lindane 141 (6; 487) England Long et al., 1998

Linuron 51 England Long et al., 1998

Linuron 11 (<0.5; 132) England (urban) Daniels et al., 2000

Linuron 11 (<0.5; 53) England (rural) Daniels et al., 2000

Malathion 52 (1; 305) England Long et al., 1998

Parathion 78 (1; 613) England Long et al., 1998

Prometryn 295 (2; 3 050) England Long et al., 1998

Prometryn 1 (<0.5; 8) England (urban) Daniels et al., 2000

Prometryn 2 (<0.5; 7) England (rural) Daniels et al., 2000

Propanil 46 (3; 161) England Long et al., 1998

Propazine 3002 (1; 3 020) England Long et al., 1998

Propiconazol 48 (21; 96) England Long et al., 1998

Simazine 58 (1; 539) England Long et al., 1998

Terbutryn 26 (1; 94) England Long et al., 1998

Trans-Permethrin 189 (3; 567) England Long et al., 1998


Table A–4 (cont.) Concentration ranges of compounds detected in bed sediments


μg/kg DW

Country Reference

Pesticides (cont.)

Trifluralin 3 (1; 8) England Long et al., 1998

α-BHC 45 (8; 164) England Long et al., 1998

Pharmaceuticals

Diclofenac nd Switzerland Buser et al., 1998b

17 α- Ethinylestradiol (<0.05 ; 0.5) Australia Braga et al., 2005

17 α- Ethinylestradiol (< 0.4 ; 0.9) Germany Ternes et al., 2006

17 α- Ethinylestradiol (nd; 22.8) Spain López de Alda et al., 2002

17 β- Estradiol (0.22; 2.48) Australia Braga et al., 2005

17 β- Estradiol (<0.2; 1.5) Germany Ternes et al., 2006

Diethylstilbestrol nd Spain López de Alda et al., 2002

Estradiol nd Spain López de Alda et al., 2002

Estriol (nd; 3.37) Spain López de Alda et al., 2002

Estrone (nd; 11.9) Spain López de Alda et al., 2002

Estrone (0.16; 1.17) Australia Braga et al., 2005

Estrone (<0.2; 2) Germany Ternes et al., 2006

Diphenhydramine (<5; 48.6) USA Ferrer et al., 2004

Phenols 23.4 (2.1; 292) UK Davis and Rudd, 1999

Phtalates

DEHP 7871 (229; 19 421) England Long et al., 1998

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)

Sum of PAHs 16 (0; 203) UK Davis and Rudd, 1999

Sum of 13 PAHs Median – 3400 USA (all lakes) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Sum of 13 PAHs Median- 8900 USA (dense urban lake) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Sum of 13 PAHs Median- 1300 USA (light urban lake) Metre and and Mahler, 2005


Table A–4 (cont.) Concentration ranges of compounds detected in bed sediments


μg/kg DW

Country Reference

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)(cont.)

Sum of 13 PAHs Median- 320 USA (reference lake) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Fluoranthene 2576 (36; 15 307) England Long et al., 1998

Fluoranthene 27 (<0.5; 702) England (urban) Daniels et al., 2000

Fluoranthene 40 (<0.5; 369) England (rural) Daniels et al., 2000

Naphthalene 452 (22; 2 717) England Long et al., 1998

Naphthalene 9 (2; 39) England (urban) Daniels et al., 2000

Naphthalene 16 (5; 39) England (rural) Daniels et al., 2000

Pyrene 2226 (32; 11 854) England Long et al., 1998

Pyrene 30 (<0.5; 729) England (urban) Daniels et al., 2000

Pyrene 65 (1; 533) England (rural) Daniels et al., 2000

Polychlorinated Biphenils (PCBs)

Sum of PCBs Median – 43 USA (all lakes) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Sum of PCBs Median- 108 USA (dense urban

lake)

Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Sum of PCBs Median- 15 USA (light urban lake) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Sum of PCBs Median- nd USA (reference lake) Metre and and Mahler, 2005

Surfactant England Long et al., 1998

Nonylphenol 30 (6; 69) England Long et al., 1998

Nonylphenol 2 (<0.5; 23) England (urban) Daniels et al., 2000

Nonylphenol 5 (<0.5; 15) England (rural) Daniels et al., 2000

Nonylphenol Maximum - 2.83 mg/kg Austria Micić and Hofmann, 2009

Nonylphenol monoethoxylate Maximum – 2.10 mg/kg Austria Micić and Hofmann, 2009

Nonylphenol diethoxylate Maximum – 0.28 mg/kg Austria Micić and Hofmann, 2009

Octylphenol Maximum – 0.035 mg/kg Austria Micić and Hofmann, 2009


Table A-4 (cont.) Concentration ranges of compounds detected in bed sediments


μg/kg DW

Country Reference

Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans(PCDD/Fs)

Min; Max in pg TEQ/g DW

PCDD/F 0.1; 15.6 USA Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 0.4; 12 Austria Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 0.1; 17.5 Germany Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 0.08; 9.4 Russia Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 0.4; 3.7 Spain Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 1.8; 7.7 Spain Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 0.02; 24 Japan Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 0.04; 4.4 Korea Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 223; 250 USA (polluted) Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 10; 761 USA (polluted) Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 20; 230 Finland (polluted) Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 100; 59 000 Finland (polluted) Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 434; 923 Netherlands (polluted) Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 352; 1849 Netherlands (polluted) Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

PCDD/F 1.1; 150 Norway (polluted) Eljarrat and Barcelo, 2004

Sum of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) – p,p’-DDT + p,p’-DDD + p,p’-DDE


APPENDIX F Figure A - 1 A list of potential contaminants in paper production (DoE, 1996a)